From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb format is pessimal for toast compression |
Date: | 2014-09-16 17:11:47 |
Message-ID: | 54186F53.3080206@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/16/2014 09:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 09/16/2014 06:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> Actually, having the keys all at the same level *is* relevant for the
>>>>> issue we're discussing. If those 270 keys are organized in a tree, it's
>>>>> not the same as having them all on one level (and not as problematic).
>>>>
>>>> I believe Robert meant that the 270 keys are not at the top level, but
>>>> are at some level (in other words, some object has 270 pairs). That is
>>>> equivalent to having them at the top level for the purposes of this
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I am slightly concerned about weighing use cases around very
>>>> large JSON documents too heavily. Having enormous jsonb documents just
>>>> isn't going to work out that well, but neither will equivalent designs
>>>> in popular document database systems for similar reasons. For example,
>>>> the maximum BSON document size supported by MongoDB is 16 megabytes,
>>>> and that seems to be something that their users don't care too much
>>>> about. Having 270 pairs in an object isn't unreasonable, but it isn't
>>>> going to be all that common either.
>>
>> Well, I can only judge from the use cases I personally have, none of
>> which involve more than 100 keys at any level for most rows. So far
>> I've seen some people argue hypotetical use cases involving hundreds of
>> keys per level, but nobody who *actually* has such a use case.
>
> I already told you that I did, and that it was the only and only app I
> had written for JSONB.
Ah, ok, I thought yours was a test case. Did you check how it performed
on the two patches at all? My tests with 185 keys didn't show any
difference, including for a "last key" case.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-09-16 17:14:08 | Re: jsonb contains behaviour weirdness |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-16 16:58:15 | Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE |