| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 00:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRS_2mJZzCYhsrTahrw8EFK10sj-KVO+hOoS5GKY-SqVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-23 03:47:57 | Re: Useless "Replica Identity: NOTHING" noise from psql \d |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-23 00:22:12 | Re: jsonb status |