Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Дата
Msg-id CAM3SWZQzOxmryVe_bdu9WhqbJTBoiqM7knvKm0oRYxvfsFnz7Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Well, let me see if I understand the situation correctly:
>
> * jsonb_ops supports more operators
>
> * jsonb_hash_ops produces smaller, better-performing indexes
>
> * jsonb_ops falls over on inputs with wide field values, but
> jsonb_hash_ops does not

There might be some compelling cases for indexing existence rather
than containment, since the recheck flag isn't set there, but in
general this summary seems sound. I would say that broadly, existence
is a less useful operator than containment, and so jsonb_hash_ops is
broadly more compelling. I didn't propose changing the default due to
concerns about the POLA, but I'm happy to be told that those concerns
were out of proportion to the practical benefits of a different
default.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Следующее
От: Oleg Bartunov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Default gin operator class of jsonb failing with index row size maximum reached