Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: json api WIP patch

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: json api WIP patch
Date: 2013-01-15 19:47:23
Message-ID: CAHyXU0y6GDcTxqD+jRHJ5M39kNZbDNEUXCA1-Mc_HHbL+ebqhQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 07:52:56PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 01/14/2013 07:36 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> >While testing this I noticed that integer based 'get' routines are
>> >zero based -- was this intentional?  Virtually all other aspects of
>> >SQL are 1 based:
>> >
>> >postgres=# select json_get('[1,2,3]', 1);
>> >  json_get
>> >----------
>> >  2
>> >(1 row)
>> >
>> >postgres=# select json_get('[1,2,3]', 0);
>> >  json_get
>> >----------
>> >  1
>> >(1 row)
>>
>> Yes. it's intentional. SQL arrays might be 1-based by default, but
>> JavaScript arrays are not. JsonPath and similar gadgets treat the
>> arrays as zero-based. I suspect the Json-using community would not
>> thank us for being overly SQL-centric on this - and I say that as
>> someone who has always thought zero based arrays were a major design
>> mistake, responsible for countless off-by-one errors.
>
> Perhaps we could compromise by making arrays 0.5-based.

Well, I'm not prepared to argue with Andrew in this one.  It was
surprising behavior to me, but that's sample size one.

merlin


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-15 19:51:25
Subject: Re: passing diff options to pg_regress
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2013-01-15 19:46:39
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group