2009/4/9 Teodor Sigaev :
> contains - all elements of second array are contained in the first one.
> Empty array has no element, so it can't be contained.
That sounds wrong. A B should surely always be true if B is
empty. ie "for all x, x in B implies x in A". Or put another way,
"contains" just
While I was testing this I realized that I wasn't getting quite the same
answers :-(. In particular, it seems that the core operators consider
an empty array to be contained in anything else, while intarray will
only return true for two nonempty arrays.
Urgh. We (with Oleg) digged a bit around
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
[empty arrays and containment ops]
Tom> From what I understand of GIN's internal workings, this is
Tom> unfixable because there is nothing to make an index entry on
Tom> when looking at an empty array. Unless you know of a trick to
Tom> get around that, we'v
I just got rid of the contrib/intarray duplicates of <@ and @>,
as we discussed here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/17021.1234474...@sss.pgh.pa.us
While I was testing this I realized that I wasn't getting quite the same
answers :-(. In particular, it seems that the core operators cons
