| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(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 03:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZWHonT8=8F119f8PaDCkvWAyGu=z-gBDPULCDu_usR6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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)"
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nico Williams | 2016-11-29 03:25:29 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |
| Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2016-11-29 02:55:59 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |