Re: jsonb and nested hstore

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 08:54 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> That's called a "straw man argument", Robert.
>> Me: We should recommend that people use jsonb unless they have a
>> specific reason for using json.
> We could also make the opposite argument - people use json unless they
> have a specific reason for using jsonb.
>
> btw, there is one more thing about JSON which I recently learned - a lot of
> JavaScript people actually expect the JSON binary form to retain field order
>
> It is not in any specs, but nevertheless all major imlementations do it and
> some code depends on it.
> IIRC, this behaviour is currently also met only by json and not by jsonb.

Yes: This was the agreement that was struck and is the main reason why
there are two json types, not one. JSON does not guarantee field
ordering as I read the spec and for the binary form ordering is not
maintained as a concession to using the hstore implementation.

You can always use the standard text json type for storage and cast
into the index for searching; what you give up there is some
performance and the ability to manipulate the json over the hstore
API. I think that will have to do for now and field ordering for
hstore/jsonb can be reserved as a research item.

merlin