On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
>> But that's really just a start. Frankly, I think we need to
>> think a lot harder about how we want to be able to index this sort of data.
>> The proposed hstore operators appear to me to be at best just scratching the
>> surface of that. I'd like to be able to index jsonb's #> and #>> operators,
>> for example. Unanchored subpath operators could be an area that's
>> interesting to implement and index.
> I'm sure that's true, but it's not our immediate concern. We need to
> think very hard about it to get everything we want, but we also need
> to think somewhat harder about it in order to get even a basic jsonb
> type committed.

By the way, I think it would be fine to defer adding many of the new
hstore operators and functions until 9.5 (as hstore infrastructure, or
in-core jsonb infrastructure, or anything else), if you felt you had
to, provided that you included just those sufficient to create jsonb
operator classes (plus the operator classes themselves, of course).
There is absolutely no question about having to do this for
B-Tree...why not go a couple of operator classes further?

Peter Geoghegan

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

Reply via email to