Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems to be the consensus, but now we need a name for the
>> soon-to-be-not-default opclass. What's a good short adjective for it?

> "comprehensive"? Not particularly short ...

> According to Merriam Webster:
> Synonyms
> all-embracing, all-in [chiefly British], all-inclusive,
> broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete,
> encyclopedic, cover-all, cyclopedic, embracive, exhaustive,
> full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough,
> universal

> Related Words
> broad, catholic, encyclical, general, inclusionary, overall;
> cosmic (also cosmical), extensive, far, far-reaching, grand,
> large, panoptic, sweeping, vast, wide, wide-ranging; blanket,
> indiscriminate, unrestricted

> jsonb_omnibus_ops ?

hm ... jsonb_full_ops seems nicely short, but on the other hand it just
begs the question "full what?". I'm a bit worried about future-proof-ness
too; what if somebody later comes up with a new opclass that indexes more
operators? We'd end up calling it jsonb_fuller_ops, ick.

I was kind of hoping for a technical adjective, like "hash" is for the
soon-to-be-default opclass. What is it about this opclass that
distinguishes it from other indexing approaches that someone might try?

regards, tom lane