Re: jsonb contains behaviour weirdness

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: jsonb contains behaviour weirdness
Date: 2014-09-15 18:21:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmobSW-djd1-daYHYkmz3G-s5JAbS5xmqpHi13kvrp1GBAw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Personally I'd think that we should retain it for objects; Peter's
>> main argument against that was that the comment would be too complicated,
>> but that seems a bit silly from here.
>
> I just don't see any point to it. My argument against the complexity
> of explaining why the optimization is only used with objects is based
> on the costs and the benefits. I think the benefits are very close to
> nil.

That seems pessimistic to me; I'm with Tom.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-15 18:25:41 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-09-15 18:20:43 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)