2016-06-01 17:55 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>:

> On 5/31/16 7:04 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>> The idea of converting a JSONB array to a PG array is appealing and
>> would potentially be more general-purpose than adding a new unnest. I'm
>> not sure how feasible either suggestion is.
> The one part I think is missing right now is unnest allows you to 'stitch'
> or 'zip' multiple arrays together into a single recordset via
> unnest(array1, array2, ...). Presumably that could be added to the json
> equivalents.
> I will say that I think the current state of affairs is gratuitously
>> verbose and expects users to memorize a substantial number of long
>> function names to perform simple tasks.
> +100. It's *much* easier to deal with JSON in other languages because they
> have native support for the concept of a dictionary, so changing an element
> is as simple as json['foo'][3] = 'new'. Trying to do that in Postgres is
> horrible partly because of the need to remember some odd operator, but
> moreso because it's ultimately still an operator. What we need is a form of
> *addressing*. If you could directly access items in a JSON doc with []
> notation then a lot of the current functions could go away, *especially* if
> the [] notation allowed things like a slice and a list of values (ie:
> json['foo', 'bar', 'baz'] = '[42,{"my": "nice object"},"with a random
> string"]'. Or = row(42, ...).

these features I would to see in Postgres too.



> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
> Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
> 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to