public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Gavin Flower <[email protected]>
Cc: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Stark <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:26:48 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On Fri, May  9, 2014 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May  9, 2014 at 07:04:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gavin Flower <[email protected]> writes:
> > > On 09/05/14 15:34, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> Looks good.  I was thinking the jsonb_ops name could remain unchanged
> > >> and the jsonb_hash_ops could be called jsonb_combo_ops as it combines
> > >> the key and value into a single index entry.
> > 
> > > If you have 'jsonb_combo_ops' - then surely 'jsonb_op' should be called 
> > > 'jsonb_xxx_ops', where the 'xxx' distinguishes that from 
> > > 'jsonb_combo_ops'?  I guess, if any appropriate wording of 'xxx' was too 
> > > cumbersome, then it would be worse.
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm disinclined to change the opclass names now.  It's not apparent
> > to me that "combo" is a better choice than "hash" for the second opclass.
> 
> Well, if we are optionally hashing json_ops for long strings, what does
> jsonb_hash_ops do uniquely with hashing?  Does it always hash, while
> json_ops optionally hashes?  Is that the distinguishing characteristic? 
> It seemed the _content_ of the indexed value was more important, rather
> than the storage method.

Also, are people going to think that jsonb_hash_ops creates a hash
index, which is not crash safe, even though it is a GIN index?  Do we
have this "hash" confusion anywhere else?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email protected]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


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

view thread (65+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox