Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:29:59 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Mark Rofail <markm.rofail@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
	Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <hs@cybertec.at>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays
Message-ID: <20180411132959.xjfiicra2py2fuz3@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJvoCutyJSuOp_jdJBqmQ=dGonEX_xN1ZwFpEyzmO4FaPhx0DQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk

Mark Rofail wrote:

> > In particular: it seemed to me that you decided to throw away the idea
> > of the new GIN operator without sufficient evidence that it was
> > unnecessary.
> 
> I have to admit to that. But in my defence @> is also GIN indexable so the
> only difference in performance between 'anyarray @>> anyelement' and
> 'anyarray @> ARRAY [anyelement]' is the delay caused by the ARRAY[]
> operation theoretically.

I think I need to review Tom's bounce-for-rework email
https://postgr.es/m/28389.1351094795@sss.pgh.pa.us
to respond to this intelligently.  Tom mentioned @> there but there was
a comment about the comparison semantics used by that operator, so I'm
unclear on whether or not that issue has been fixed.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services