On the one hand, you can require that 12345 always maps to AWERQ, in which case an attacker can use frequency analysis, metadata chaining, etc. to determine with some confidence that AWERQ = 12345. Calling this "pseudo-anonymization" is definitely more accurate than calling it "encryption", but you might as well just use a one-way hash function instead. It doesn't do anything against determined attackers with prolonged or broad exposure to the data; I don't see the value except perhaps for compliance with poorly thought out or outdated regulations.
On the other hand, you can require that 12345 always maps to a different string every time, but that means you need a different key/salt/IV/nonce for every row or cell, defeating indexing and aggregation, and so all queries become full table scans. This significantly frustrates an attacker, but also significantly frustrates legitimate operations.
Zipcodes are short. If not given extra padding, their ciphertexts will still be short.
Zipcodes are also low cardinality. Unless you use multiple salts/nonces/IVs/keys, the frequency of ciphertexts will match the frequency of plaintexts.
In many situations, a prepared attacker will be able to insert their own data beforehand, allowing them to perform a chosen-plaintext attack and potentially decipher much of the data. The best protection against this is to not reuse salts/nonces/IVs/keys and thus again defeat performant searches.
None of this is to necessarily say it's not worth it but rather to keep in mind the article's point: know your threat model.