On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kaare Rasmussen <ka...@jasonic.dk> wrote: >>> As json essentially only has three basic data types, string, int, and >>> boolean, I wonder how much of this - to index, search, and sort on >>> unstructured data - is possible. > >> I feel your pain. jsquery is superb for subdocument searching on >> *specific* subdocuments but range searching is really limited. > > Yeah. The problem here is that a significant part of the argument for > the JSON/JSONB datatypes was that they adhere to standards (RFC 7159 in > particular). I can't see us accepting a patch that changes them into > JSON-plus-some-PG-enhancements. > > For cases where you know that specific sub-fields can be expected to be > of particular datatypes, I think you could get a lot of mileage out of > functional indexes ... but you'd have to write your queries to match the > indexes, which could be painful.
If you create a view which has columns defined according to the index expression, it does remove a lot of the pain of making queries that use those expressions. It looks just like using a real column, as long as you don't update it. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
