On May 6, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Meh. I would not think that that represents effective use of JSON:
> if the rows are all the same, why aren't you exposing that structure
> as regular SQL columns? IMHO, the value of JSON fields within a SQL
> table is to deal with data that is not so well structured.
The use of JSON will not be ideal -- not in this sense. For example, at $work, we’re using it in place of an EAV model.
Hencemost rows have the same keys (or a subset of known keys). Or think of your favorite JSON API: every call to
http://api.pgxn.org/user/$username.jsonis going to have a very similar structure.
> In any case, it was certainly the complaint that insertions might
> fail altogether that made me (and I assume others) want to not have
> jsonb_ops as the default opclass. Is there a good reason not to
> fix that limitation while we still can?
Fixing++
David
