Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WXdei-0007dm-Qh for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 21:34:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WXdei-0008RA-7S for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 21:34:08 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WXdeg-0008Pl-RH; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 21:34:06 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WXdee-0008WB-Mg; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 21:34:06 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s38LY1jb028590; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:34:01 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation In-reply-to: References: <27299.1396989666@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:03:46 -0700" Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:34:01 -0400 Message-ID: <28589.1396992841@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Of the two operator classes for type jsonb, jsonb_ops is the >> default. jsonb_hash_ops supports fewer operators but will work with >> larger indexed values than jsonb_ops can support. >> >> Is that accurate? Do we need to say more? > Well, I'm not sure that it's worth noting there, but as you probably > already know jsonb_hash_ops will perform a lot better than the default > GIN opclass, and will have much smaller indexes. FWIW I think that the > size limitation is overblown, and performance is in fact the > compelling reason to prefer jsonb_hash_ops, although it's probably > incongruous to explain the issues that way in this section of the > docs. It probably suffices that that is covered in the "JSON Types" > section. Well, the subtext is whether we should move that discussion to this new section. I think there is some comparable discussion in the full-text-indexing chapter, too. (BTW, wasn't there some discussion of changing our minds about which one is the default? We already have one bug report complaining about jsonb_ops' size restriction, so that seems to be evidence in favor of changing ...) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers