jsonb existence queries are misimplemented by jsonb_ops

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: jsonb existence queries are misimplemented by jsonb_ops
Date: 2014-05-07 20:39:12
Message-ID: 4392.1399495152@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> The readability of that comment starts to go downhill with its use of
> "reset" to refer to what everything else calls a "recheck" flag, and in
> any case it's claiming that we *don't* need a recheck for exists (a
> statement I suspect to be false, but more later).

And, indeed, it's false:

regression=# create table j (f1 jsonb);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# insert into j values ('{"foo": {"bar": "baz"}}');
INSERT 0 1
regression=# insert into j values ('{"foo": {"blah": "baz"}}');
INSERT 0 1
regression=# insert into j values ('{"fool": {"bar": "baz"}}');
INSERT 0 1
regression=# create index on j using gin(f1);
CREATE INDEX
regression=# select * from j where f1 ? 'bar';
f1
----
(0 rows)

regression=# set enable_seqscan to 0;
SET
regression=# select * from j where f1 ? 'bar';
f1
--------------------------
{"foo": {"bar": "baz"}}
{"fool": {"bar": "baz"}}
(2 rows)

The indexscan is incorrectly returning rows where the queried key exists
but isn't at top-level.

We could fix this either by giving up on no-recheck for existence queries,
or by changing the way that non-top-level keys get indexed. However
I suspect the latter would break containment queries, or at least make
their lives a lot more difficult.

Another idea would be to change the definition of the exists operator
so that it *does* look into sub-objects. It seems rather random to me
that containment looks into sub-objects but exists doesn't. However,
possibly there are good reasons for the non-orthogonality.

Thoughts?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-05-07 20:40:19 Re: 9.4 checksum errors in recovery with gin index
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2014-05-07 20:36:43 Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers