public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[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: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:39:37 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM3SWZS4Tn-xZOBqM_ds-nhB2wLSpKG86rcJnMSexqDJqWgzNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM3SWZQzOxmryVe_bdu9WhqbJTBoiqM7knvKm0oRYxvfsFnz7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+TgmoZucoe-w5P_16A-gdfRBFCCu7PD17YO-KqrYPBhb5TxAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAM-w4HNawF2sPDSUrZsng7zgGnste-Vy1+42AufyVq9UkVeCZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAM3SWZS4Tn-xZOBqM_ds-nhB2wLSpKG86rcJnMSexqDJqWgzNg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I wonder whether the most effective use of time at this point
>> wouldn't be to fix jsonb_ops to do that, rather than arguing about
>> what to rename it to.  If it didn't have the failure-for-long-strings
>> problem I doubt anybody would be unhappy about making it the default.

> I would expect the selectivity of keys on their own to be very low
> with idiomatic usage of jsonb. Typically, every row in a table will
> have almost the same keys. The current default opclass makes more
> sense for when that isn't the case.

Meh.  I would not think that that represents effective use of JSON:
if the rows are all the same, why aren't you exposing that structure
as regular SQL columns?  IMHO, the value of JSON fields within a SQL
table is to deal with data that is not so well structured.

In any case, it was certainly the complaint that insertions might
fail altogether that made me (and I assume others) want to not have
jsonb_ops as the default opclass.  Is there a good reason not to
fix that limitation while we still can?

			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]
  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