| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-21 13:31:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMeqWJ64nxa2Wp6myJ=FUt8wSgAj6stbsms4tt68UKQxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I must admit that I'm coming around to the view that jsonb_hash_ops
> would make a better default. Its performance is superb, and I think
> there's a strong case to be made for that more than making up for it
> not supporting all indexable operators - the existence operators just
> aren't that useful in comparison
>
Is there any \d command that would display a nice list of which operators a
given operator class actually supports? It's kind of hard to determine
whether a proposed index would actually be useful for your queries without
it.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-21 13:38:52 | Re: QSoC proposal: Rewrite pg_dump and pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-03-21 13:24:08 | Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving? |