On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:11 AM Flo Rance <troura...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is an expected behavior. You can see the list of array operators with > which a GIN index can be used in the doc: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/indexes-types.html > > And a very good and detailed explanation about any operator here: > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4058731/can-postgresql-index-array-columns/29245753#29245753 > > Regards, > Flo > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> A client had an issue with a where that had a where clause something like >> this: >> >> WHERE 123456 = ANY(integer_array_column) >> >> >> I was surprised that this didn't use the pre-existing GIN index on >> integer_array_column, whereas recoding as >> >> WHERE ARRAY[123456] <@ integer_array_column >> >> >> did cause the GIN index to be used. Is this a known/expected behavior? If >> so, is there any logical reason why we couldn't have the planner pick up on >> that? >> > Thanks. I'll bring the question of why-cant-we over to the hackers list.
