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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date: 2014-04-23 12:17:49
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRGyBfCK9GKr-cqna02Mr5JnqaodQD=q54xttcZn82zRg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > I vote for changing it, even though neither option is ideal I think
> > that given the nature of datatype the current default will break
> > inserts for common usage pattern and that's much worse than not
> > being able to use the index for some operators.
>
> I agree. We should choose the most general option as the default.
>
+1. Less operators are supported by the now-named jsonb_hash_ops but at
least users won't be surprised by failures caused by too long index records.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-04-23 13:50:50 Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-04-23 10:56:30 Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-04-23 12:26:02 Re: pg_upgrade and epoch
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2014-04-23 11:46:22 Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table