From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extract numeric filed in JSONB more effectively |
Date: | 2024-11-15 16:30:09 |
Message-ID: | mmilfltxeqgajpi4zok2v2moudot6bhdmwsqgjgnymz3nvkvng@k3caignaldcp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 03:03:18AM GMT, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> > I imagined you'd the patch should create a SupportRequestSimplify
> > support function for jsonb_numeric() that checks if the input
> > expression is an OpExpr with funcid of jsonb_object_field(). All you
> > do then is ditch the cast and change the OpExpr to call a new function
> > named jsonb_object_field_numeric() which returns the val.numeric
> > directly. Likely the same support function could handle jsonb casts
> > to other types too, in which case you'd just call some other function,
> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean().
>
> Basically yes. The reason complexity comes when we many operators we
> want to optimize AND my patch I want to reduce the number of function
> created.
>
> The optimized functions and operators includes:
> 1. jsonb_object_field / ->
> 2. jsonb_array_element / ->
> 3. jsonb_extract_path / #>
> 4. jsonb_path_query
> 5. jsonb_path_query_first
>
>
> > ..., in which case you'd just call some other function,
> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean().
>
> This works, but We need to create 2 functions for each operator. In the
> patched case, we have 5 operators, so we need to create 10 functions.
>
> op[1,2,3,4,5]_bool
> op[1,2,3,4,5]_numeric.
>
> Within the start / finish function, we need to create *7* functions.
Any particular reason you want to keep number of functions minimal? Is
it just to make the patch smaller? I might be missing something without
looking at the implementation in details, but the difference between 10
and 7 functions doesn't seem to be significant.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-11-15 16:33:37 | nbtree VACUUM's REDO routine doesn't clear page's VACUUM cycle ID |
Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2024-11-15 16:19:07 | Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits |