Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:32:30 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for
 GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Message-ID: <20140422223230.GL10046@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAM3SWZQGZyqSBzaFZ4gmtnQZpcXLE=ceUL_O29gtMgnP=AvC+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <28589.1396992841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZRAxisGCdODhbgeiNL6tayqL18XMzun4W3xesASmKfwDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <29030.1396993582@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM3SWZQzOxmryVe_bdu9WhqbJTBoiqM7knvKm0oRYxvfsFnz7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <534475B7.6020908@dunslane.net> <5344EAA4.1050605@vmware.com>
 <CA+TgmoZucoe-w5P_16A-gdfRBFCCu7PD17YO-KqrYPBhb5TxAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30137.1397057056@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM-w4HNawF2sPDSUrZsng7zgGnste-Vy1+42AufyVq9UkVeCZw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAM-w4HNawF2sPDSUrZsng7zgGnste-Vy1+42AufyVq9UkVeCZw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, Apr  9, 2014 at 02:22:54PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Maybe we should make *neither* of these the default opclass, and give
> >> *neither* the name json_ops.
> >
> > There's definitely something to be said for that.  Default opclasses are
> > sensible when there's basically only one behavior that's interesting for
> > most people.  We can already see that that's not going to be the case
> > for jsonb indexes, at least not with the currently available alternatives.
> >
> > Not having a default would force users to make decisions explicitly.
> > Is that what we want?
> 
> I don't like the idea of having no default opclass. I think there's a
> huge usability gain in being able to "just" create an index on a
> column and have it do something reasonable for most use cases.
> 
> I can get behind the idea of having separate index opclasses for paths
> and path-value pairs but I suspect the default should just be to index
> both in the same index. If we can have one default index opclass that
> supports containment and existence and then other opclasses that are
> smaller but only support a subset of the operators that would seem
> like the best compromise.
> 
> I'm a bit confused by Heikki's list though. I would expect path and
> path-value pair to be the only useful ones. I'm not clear what an
> index on keys or key-value would be -- it would index just the
> top-level keys and values without recursing?

Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers