2016-11-29 4:00 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Christian Convey < > christian.con...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> >> wrote: >> >>> While XPath is expressive and compact, XSLT >>> is rather verbose; jq is as expressive as XSLT, but with the compact >>> verbosity of XPath. >>> >> >> Instead, your point was that jq seems to have many advantages over >> json-path in general, and therefore PG should offer jq instead or, or in >> addition to, json-path. >> >> > IMO jq is considerably closer to XSLT than XPath - which leads me to > figure that since xml has both that JSON can benefit from jq and > json-path. I'm not inclined to dig too deep here but I'd rather take jq in > the form of "pl/jq" and have json-path (abstractly) as something that you > can use like "pg_catalog.get_value(json, json-path)" > I am not against to this idea. The jq and similar environments can have sense in JSON NoSQL databases. Using it in relation database in searching functions is a overkill. Regards Pavel > > David J. > > >
