On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What I think is tricky here is that there's more than one way to
> conceptualize what the JSON data type really is.  Is it a key-value
> store of sorts, or just a way to store text values that meet certain
> minimalist syntactic criteria?  I had imagined it as the latter, in
> which case normalization isn't sensible.  But if you think of it the
> first way, then normalization is not only sensible, but almost
> obligatory.

That makes a lot of sense. Given the restrictions I tend to prefer in my 
database data types, I had imagined it as the former. And since I'm using it 
now to store key/value pairs (killing off some awful EAV implementations in the 
process, BTW), I certainly think of it more formally as an object.


But I can live with the other interpretation, as long as the differences are 
clearly understood and documented. Perhaps a note could be added to the docs 
explaining this difference, and what one can do to adapt for it. A normalizing 
function would certainly help.

Best,

David



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to