On May 6, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Meh. I would not think that that represents effective use of JSON: > if the rows are all the same, why aren't you exposing that structure > as regular SQL columns? IMHO, the value of JSON fields within a SQL > table is to deal with data that is not so well structured.
The use of JSON will not be ideal -- not in this sense. For example, at $work, we’re using it in place of an EAV model. Hence most rows have the same keys (or a subset of known keys). Or think of your favorite JSON API: every call to http://api.pgxn.org/user/$username.json is going to have a very similar structure. > In any case, it was certainly the complaint that insertions might > fail altogether that made me (and I assume others) want to not have > jsonb_ops as the default opclass. Is there a good reason not to > fix that limitation while we still can? Fixing++ David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
