Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
От | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAF4Au4wVcdsGLQOnzib3NoiJPF7seC9ydR4e6XVV_9D0WUgNWA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
+1 but bit confused with json instead of jsonb On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 05/10/2014 04:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >> >> >> The main difference between the two opclasses from a user's standpoint is >> not whether they hash or not. The big difference is that one indexes >> complete paths from the root, and the other indexes just the "leaf" level. >> For example, if you have an object like '{"foo": {"bar": 123 } }', one will >> index "foo", "foo->bar", and "foo->bar->123" while the other will index >> "foo", "bar" and "123". >> >> Whether the opclasses use hashing to shorten the key is an orthogonal >> property, and IMHO not as important. To reflect that, I suggest that we name >> the opclasses: >> >> json_path_ops >> json_value_ops >> >> or something along those lines. >> >> > > > That looks like the first suggestion I've actually liked and that users will > be able to understand. > > cheers > > andrew > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: