From: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb status |
Date: | 2014-03-23 08:32:45 |
Message-ID: | CAF4Au4wXW6XsehaTq50eP0Vaq1qVKjGu2ff_C-MBX3aoPCicmA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will
be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We
can add it later to contrib/jsonbext.
I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of scalar.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in
>> literally?
>
> There are two GIN opclasses supplied. There is a default, which
> supports more operators (various "existence" operators - see the
> documentation). There is an alternative called jsonb_hash_ops that
> only supports containment, and performs considerably better than the
> default. Containment *is* the compelling operator to support, though -
> you can do rather a lot with it. This must be what you're referring
> to, since I recall you blogged about the response it got at pgConf.EU.
> Both are available.
>
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2014-03-23 11:43:42 | Re: Fwd: Proposal: variant of regclass |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-03-23 06:44:26 | Re: Triggers on foreign tables |