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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
