Hi Damian -

your PR is in my "purple" (pull requests TODO) list, I'll try to get to
it soon.

- mike


On 6/28/14, 3:21 PM, Damian Dimmich wrote:
> Hi Michael, Jonathan,
>
> Just put a pull request in with patches for jsonb support.
>
> https://github.com/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/pull/101
>
> Jonathan - I've not gotten around to looking at generating indexes yet
> (and probably won't in the next days) - do you feel like trying this out?
>
> Best,
> Damian
>
> On Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:06:49 PM UTC+4, Damian Dimmich wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:21:40 PM UTC+4, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
>
>
>         On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:32:41 AM UTC-4, Damian Dimmich wrote:
>
>             I intend to develop further syntax/query support for this
>             type on an as needed basis for now - suggestions and
>             comments are much appreciated.
>
>
>         1. Nice work!  Now I'm more likely to use jsonb!
>
>     :)
>
>
>         2. I ran into some sqlalchemy issues with postgresql and gin
>         indexes recently.  the default `.match()` didn't accept the
>         regconfig argument, which can be a necessary argument to
>         properly hint the query-planner to use the index.  the result
>         was the index is ignored and the column was being cast into
>         ts_vector in real-time.  on a few thousand rows, there was a
>         100x difference in query time.    ( discussion here :
>         
> https://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/issue/3078/postgresql-full-text-search-on-match
>         
> <https://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/issue/3078/postgresql-full-text-search-on-match>
>         ; there's a PR in the queue too )
>
>         so my suggestion would be to make sure you run the results of
>         the generated SQL through `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` on a decently
>         large test dataset to make sure the gin indexes are being used
>         properly.  You could end up the situation were the sql is
>         totally valid and "looks right", but it's structured in a way
>         that the indexes are ignored.
>
>
>     You are  way ahead of me in this case it seems :).  I'll make sure
>     to do that however - good suggestion.  It looks like the final
>     version of 9.4 will have more operator support than i'd originally
>     expected (or it may be pushed into 9.5) according to my
>     understanding of some of the commits in the postgres tree.  It
>     would be cool to have something working at around the 9.4 release
>     date.
>
>     d
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "sqlalchemy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to