"Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Just found out something here http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17021.1234474178@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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
