On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 06:39:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I think the idea of hashing only keys/values that are "too long" is a > > reasonable compromise. I've not finished coding it (because I keep > > getting distracted by other problems in the code :-() but it does not > > look to be very difficult. I'm envisioning the cutoff as being something > > like 128 bytes; in practice that would mean that few if any keys get > > hashed, I think. > > Attached is a draft patch for this. In addition to the hash logic per se, > I made these changes: > > * Replaced the K/V prefix bytes with a code that distinguishes the types > of JSON values. While this is not of any huge significance for the > current index search operators, it's basically free to store the info, > so I think we should do it for possible future use. > > * Fixed the problem with "exists" returning rows it shouldn't. I > concluded that the best fix is just to force recheck for exists, which > allows considerable simplification in the consistent functions. > > * Tried to improve the comments in jsonb_gin.c. > > Barring objections I'll commit this tomorrow, and also try to improve the > user-facing documentation about the jsonb opclasses.
Looks good. I was thinking the jsonb_ops name could remain unchanged and the jsonb_hash_ops could be called jsonb_combo_ops as it combines the key and value into a single index entry. -- 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
