Re: jsonb contains behaviour weirdness

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 18:18:05
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRuimdwWWw6k4PC98-sVRwvB6NYiybxhShhK9zT1xGkug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-09-15 18:20:43 Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-09-15 18:17:22 Re: Triconsistent catalog declaration