Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> (BTW, wasn't there some discussion of changing our minds about which
>> one is the default? We already have one bug report complaining about
>> jsonb_ops' size restriction, so that seems to be evidence in favor
>> of changing ...)
> Yes, there was. I very nearly came down on the side of making
> jsonb_hash_ops the default, but given that it doesn't make all
> operators indexable, I ultimately decided against supporting that
> course of action. I thought that that would be an odd limitation for
> the default GIN opclass to have. It was a very close call in my mind,
> and if you favor changing the default now, in light of the few
> complaints we've heard, I think that's a reasonable decision. That
> said, as I noted in the main -bugs thread, the case presented is
> fairly atypical.
Well, let me see if I understand the situation correctly:
* jsonb_ops supports more operators
* jsonb_hash_ops produces smaller, better-performing indexes
* jsonb_ops falls over on inputs with wide field values, but
jsonb_hash_ops does not
If that's an accurate summary then I would say that we've got
the default backwards. I would much rather tell people "you
can have more operators supported, but here are the tradeoffs"
than have a default that fails under evidently-not-so-improbable
cases.
regards, tom lane
