Re: Tackling JsonPath support
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZWHonT8=8F119f8PaDCkvWAyGu=z-gBDPULCDu_usR6w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Tackling JsonPath support (Christian Convey <christian.convey@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Tackling JsonPath support
Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
While XPath is expressive and compact, XSLT
is rather verbose; jq is as expressive as XSLT, but with the compact
verbosity of XPath.
Instead, your point was that jq seems to have many advantages over json-path in general, and therefore PG should offer jq instead or, or in addition to, json-path.
IMO jq is considerably closer to XSLT than XPath - which leads me to figure that since xml has both that JSON can benefit from jq and json-path. I'm not inclined to dig too deep here but I'd rather take jq in the form of "pl/jq" and have json-path (abstractly) as something that you can use like "pg_catalog.get_value(json, json-path)"
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: