public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Stark <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:17:48 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoZucoe-w5P_16A-gdfRBFCCu7PD17YO-KqrYPBhb5TxAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAM-w4HNawF2sPDSUrZsng7zgGnste-Vy1+42AufyVq9UkVeCZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAM3SWZRbVyijRX0vwhfap1S1o0OM1eGczJsQuL4CCrAs1++z7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems to be the consensus, but now we need a name for the
>> soon-to-be-not-default opclass.  What's a good short adjective for it?

> "comprehensive"?  Not particularly short ...

> According to Merriam Webster:
> Synonyms
> 	all-embracing, all-in [chiefly British], all-inclusive,
> 	broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete,
> 	encyclopedic, cover-all, cyclopedic, embracive, exhaustive,
> 	full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough,
> 	universal

> Related Words
> 	broad, catholic, encyclical, general, inclusionary, overall;
> 	cosmic (also cosmical), extensive, far, far-reaching, grand,
> 	large, panoptic, sweeping, vast, wide, wide-ranging; blanket,
> 	indiscriminate, unrestricted

> jsonb_omnibus_ops ?

hm ... jsonb_full_ops seems nicely short, but on the other hand it just
begs the question "full what?".  I'm a bit worried about future-proof-ness
too; what if somebody later comes up with a new opclass that indexes more
operators?  We'd end up calling it jsonb_fuller_ops, ick.

I was kind of hoping for a technical adjective, like "hash" is for the
soon-to-be-default opclass.  What is it about this opclass that
distinguishes it from other indexing approaches that someone might try?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
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: 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