[HACKERS] Minor inaccuracy in jsonb_path_ops documentation
The jsonb documentation says of the jsonb_path_ops GIN opclass:
A disadvantage of the jsonb_path_ops approach is that it produces no
index entries for JSON structures not containing any values, such as
{a: {}}. If a search for documents containing such a structure is
requested, it will require a full-index scan, which is quite slow.
jsonb_path_ops is therefore ill-suited for applications that often
perform such searches.
The reference to a full index scan seems questionable. This text
should indicate that a sequential scan can be expected. Even without
any statistics, in the event of not being able to extract any hash
values as GIN keys, the optimizer prefers a sequential scan.
Example with query where one jsonb_path_ops GIN hash value is generated:
postgres=# explain analyze select count(*) from test where j @
'{tags:[{term:postgres}]}';
QUERY PLAN
Aggregate (cost=4732.72..4732.73 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=0.513..0.513 rows=1 loops=1)
- Bitmap Heap Scan on test (cost=33.71..4729.59 rows=1253
width=0) (actual time=0.107..0.496 rows=100 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (j @ '{tags: [{term: postgres}]}'::jsonb)
Heap Blocks: exact=100
- Bitmap Index Scan on ttt (cost=0.00..33.40 rows=1253
width=0) (actual time=0.076..0.076 rows=100 loops=1)
Index Cond: (j @ '{tags: [{term: postgres}]}'::jsonb)
Planning time: 0.083 ms
Execution time: 0.560 ms
(8 rows)
Example of empty query hazard with no such hash values:
postgres=# explain select count(*) from test where j @ '{tags:[]}';
QUERY PLAN
--
Aggregate (cost=191519.46..191519.47 rows=1 width=0)
- Seq Scan on test (cost=0.00..191516.33 rows=1253 width=0)
Filter: (j @ '{tags: []}'::jsonb)
Planning time: 0.073 ms
(4 rows)
gincostestimate() does at least have the ability to anticipate that a
full index scan will be required, and that actually makes the
optimizer do the right thing here. Maybe the text quoted above is
intended to indicate that if there was an index scan, it would have to
be a full index scan, but that doesn't seem appropriate for user
facing documentation like this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Minor inaccuracy in jsonb_path_ops documentation
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes:
The jsonb documentation says of the jsonb_path_ops GIN opclass:
A disadvantage of the jsonb_path_ops approach is that it produces no
index entries for JSON structures not containing any values, such as
{a: {}}. If a search for documents containing such a structure is
requested, it will require a full-index scan, which is quite slow.
jsonb_path_ops is therefore ill-suited for applications that often
perform such searches.
The reference to a full index scan seems questionable.
Well, if you get an indexscan, it will be a full index scan, so
I find this warning appropriate.
The fact that the planner can avoid that in the presence of a
simple constant comparison value doesn't make it a good idea to
use jsonb_path_ops indexes if you do this type of query a lot,
because in some usages the planner won't see a constant comparison
value, and if so it'll likely choose an indexscan by default.
Getting into exactly when the planner will or won't save your bacon
is the kind of detail I'd rather not put in user-facing docs.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Minor inaccuracy in jsonb_path_ops documentation
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: The fact that the planner can avoid that in the presence of a simple constant comparison value doesn't make it a good idea to use jsonb_path_ops indexes if you do this type of query a lot, because in some usages the planner won't see a constant comparison value, and if so it'll likely choose an indexscan by default. Well, with idiomatic usage a constant value generally will be used. But I do see your point. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
