public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
To: Andy Fan <[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: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:30:09 +0100
Message-ID: <mmilfltxeqgajpi4zok2v2moudot6bhdmwsqgjgnymz3nvkvng@k3caignaldcp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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]>

> 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.

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: <mmilfltxeqgajpi4zok2v2moudot6bhdmwsqgjgnymz3nvkvng@k3caignaldcp>

* 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