From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
Date: | 2016-11-29 05:39:47 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBxpW4t3-qkd-w2RFfi7-X7k1AQctzhSN3F=QuyiRiPow@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-11-29 4:00 GMT+01:00 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Christian Convey <
> christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)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.
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christian Convey | 2016-11-29 06:34:44 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
Previous Message | Chris Bandy | 2016-11-29 05:31:51 | Re: GiST support for UUIDs |