On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:32:45PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will > be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We > can add it later to contrib/jsonbext. > > I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of scalar. > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in > >> literally? > > > > There are two GIN opclasses supplied. There is a default, which > > supports more operators (various "existence" operators - see the > > documentation). There is an alternative called jsonb_hash_ops that > > only supports containment, and performs considerably better than the > > default. Containment *is* the compelling operator to support, though - > > you can do rather a lot with it. This must be what you're referring > > to, since I recall you blogged about the response it got at pgConf.EU. > > Both are available.
My question was about whether we decided to abandon the GiST support entirely as there is no method for indexing long values: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZSbsedz_YwsQm-chT6B6KX0rh-vke=5nb2gblsem0e...@mail.gmail.com In reading your reply, I now understand that GIN supports hash and non-hash indexing types, which is great! -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers