On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 07:04:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> writes: > > > On 09/05/14 15:34, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> Looks good. I was thinking the jsonb_ops name could remain unchanged > > >> and the jsonb_hash_ops could be called jsonb_combo_ops as it combines > > >> the key and value into a single index entry. > > > > > If you have 'jsonb_combo_ops' - then surely 'jsonb_op' should be called > > > 'jsonb_xxx_ops', where the 'xxx' distinguishes that from > > > 'jsonb_combo_ops'? I guess, if any appropriate wording of 'xxx' was too > > > cumbersome, then it would be worse. > > > > Yeah, I'm disinclined to change the opclass names now. It's not apparent > > to me that "combo" is a better choice than "hash" for the second opclass. > > Well, if we are optionally hashing json_ops for long strings, what does > jsonb_hash_ops do uniquely with hashing? Does it always hash, while > json_ops optionally hashes? Is that the distinguishing characteristic? > It seemed the _content_ of the indexed value was more important, rather > than the storage method.
Also, are people going to think that jsonb_hash_ops creates a hash index, which is not crash safe, even though it is a GIN index? Do we have this "hash" confusion anywhere else? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
