public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andy Fan <[email protected]>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: Chapman Flack <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extract numeric filed in JSONB more effectively
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:23:52 +0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mmilfltxeqgajpi4zok2v2moudot6bhdmwsqgjgnymz3nvkvng@k3caignaldcp>
References: <[email protected]>
<CACJufxH-6DkAGr0GRFSS7BAwKG7uVFceXtxHLM7Ub7oGagQGKg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvqnUONCN54dAXdH678ELK7aH2gyVhh0GjTRtrexPd9YMw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<mmilfltxeqgajpi4zok2v2moudot6bhdmwsqgjgnymz3nvkvng@k3caignaldcp>
Hi Dmitry,
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 03:03:18AM GMT, Andy Fan wrote:
>>
>> > I imagined you'd the patch should create a SupportRequestSimplify
>> > support function for jsonb_numeric() that checks if the input
>> > expression is an OpExpr with funcid of jsonb_object_field(). All you
>> > do then is ditch the cast and change the OpExpr to call a new function
>> > named jsonb_object_field_numeric() which returns the val.numeric
>> > directly. Likely the same support function could handle jsonb casts
>> > to other types too, in which case you'd just call some other function,
>> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean().
>>
>> Basically yes. The reason complexity comes when we many operators we
>> want to optimize AND my patch I want to reduce the number of function
>> created.
>>
>> The optimized functions and operators includes:
>> 1. jsonb_object_field / ->
>> 2. jsonb_array_element / ->
>> 3. jsonb_extract_path / #>
>> 4. jsonb_path_query
>> 5. jsonb_path_query_first
>>
>>
>> > ..., in which case you'd just call some other function,
>> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean().
>>
>> This works, but We need to create 2 functions for each operator. In the
>> patched case, we have 5 operators, so we need to create 10 functions.
>>
>> op[1,2,3,4,5]_bool
>> op[1,2,3,4,5]_numeric.
>>
>> Within the start / finish function, we need to create *7* functions.
>
> Any particular reason you want to keep number of functions minimal? Is
> it just to make the patch smaller? I might be missing something without
> looking at the implementation in details, but the difference between 10
> and 7 functions doesn't seem to be significant.
Another reason is for reducing code duplication, writting too many
similar function looks not good to me. Chapman expressed this idea
first at [1]. Search "it would make me happy to further reduce some
of the code" in the message.
Acutally this doesn't make the patch complexer too much.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5138c6b5fd239e7ce4e1a4e63826ac27%40anastigmatix.net
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
view thread (28+ 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: Extract numeric filed in JSONB more effectively
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