From: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: JSON Path and GIN Questions |
Date: | 2023-09-16 20:50:13 |
Message-ID: | 164182692.82468.1694897413058@office.mailbox.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16/09/2023 22:19 CEST David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2023, at 23:59, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
>
> > movie @? '$ ?($.year >= 2023)'
> >
> > I believe it is indeed not possible to have such a unequality-search use
> > the GIN index. It is another weakness of JSON that can be unexpected to
> > those not in the fullness of Knowledge of the manual. Yes, this too would
> > be good to explain in the doc where JSON indexes are explained.
>
> Is that a limitation of GIN indexes in general? Or could there be opclass
> improvements in the future that would enable such comparisons?
This detail is mentioned in docs [1]:
"For these operators, a GIN index extracts clauses of the form
**accessors_chain = constant** out of the jsonpath pattern, and does the
index search based on the keys and values mentioned in these clauses."
I don't know if this is a general limitation of GIN indexes or just how these
operators are implemented right now.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-json.html#JSON-INDEXING
--
Erik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2023-09-16 21:29:18 | Re: JSON Path and GIN Questions |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-09-16 20:40:41 | Re: Add 'worker_type' to pg_stat_subscription |