Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I wonder whether the most effective use of time at this point
>> wouldn't be to fix jsonb_ops to do that, rather than arguing about
>> what to rename it to. If it didn't have the failure-for-long-strings
>> problem I doubt anybody would be unhappy about making it the default.
> I would expect the selectivity of keys on their own to be very low
> with idiomatic usage of jsonb. Typically, every row in a table will
> have almost the same keys. The current default opclass makes more
> sense for when that isn't the case.
Meh. I would not think that that represents effective use of JSON:
if the rows are all the same, why aren't you exposing that structure
as regular SQL columns? IMHO, the value of JSON fields within a SQL
table is to deal with data that is not so well structured.
In any case, it was certainly the complaint that insertions might
fail altogether that made me (and I assume others) want to not have
jsonb_ops as the default opclass. Is there a good reason not to
fix that limitation while we still can?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
