Josh,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dmitry, Alexander:
>
> I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do this:
>
> jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
>
What documents do you expect to match this operator?
Such syntax can be interpreted in very
On 06/09/2015 05:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/09/2015 02:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do
this:
jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
... that is, there is no way for us to check for key existence in an
i
On 06/09/2015 02:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus writes:
I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do this:
jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
... that is, there is no way for us to check for key existence in an
indexable fashion. Given that @> already can chec
Josh Berkus writes:
> I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do this:
> jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
> ... that is, there is no way for us to check for key existence in an
> indexable fashion. Given that @> already can check the whole path
> including the v
Dmitry, Alexander:
I'm noticing a feature gap for JSONB operators; we have no way to do this:
jsonb_col ? ARRAY['key1','key2','key3']
... that is, there is no way for us to check for key existence in an
indexable fashion. Given that @> already can check the whole path
including the value, is th
