Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5TcO-0007wt-K2 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:43:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5TcO-0003uo-3Y for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:43:36 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5TcM-0003t6-RC for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:43:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X5TcJ-0001iW-As for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:43:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6B5hOWG021822; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:43:24 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "Huang, Suya" cc: Andreas Kretschmer , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: GIN index not used In-reply-to: References: <20140711044452.GA7390@tux> <20680.1405054574@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "Huang, Suya" message dated "Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:26:09 -0000" Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:43:24 -0400 Message-ID: <21821.1405057404@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org "Huang, Suya" writes: > Just found out something here http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17021.1234474178@sss.pgh.pa.us > So I dropped the index and recreate it by specifying: using gin(terms_ts gin__int_ops) and the index works. Oh, you're using contrib/intarray? Pursuant to the thread you mention above, we removed intarray's <@ and @> operators (commit 65e758a4d3) but then reverted that (commit 156475a589) because of backwards-compatibility worries. It doesn't look like anything got done about it since then. Perhaps the extension upgrade infrastructure would offer a solution now. > My PG version is 9.3.4, none-default planner settings: > enable_mergejoin = off > enable_nestloop = off [ raised eyebrow... ] It's pretty hard to see how those would be a good idea. Not all problems are best solved by hash joins. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance