I wrote: > Seems like your problem here is that the planner has no idea about the > selectivity of this condition --- if it did, I think it would have > made the right choice, because it would have made a much higher estimate > for the cost of the indexscan. > AFAICT, Postgres 9.5 does make a reasonably correct guess when given > up-to-date stats. I speculate that you need to ANALYZE this table. Hmmm ... actually, I wonder if maybe '@>' here is the contrib/intarray operator not the core operator? The intarray operator didn't get plugged into any real estimation logic until 9.6. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
