Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing

On 2019-02-20 08:39:38 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 23:09, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 7:25 AM Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > Could we get an similarly optimized implementation of -> operator for
> > JSONB as well?
> > > Are there any other potential uses? Best to fix em all up at once and
> > then move on to other things. Thanks.
> >
> > Oddly enough, I couldn't find many/any things that were sensitive to
> > left-end decompression. The only exception is "LIKE this%" which
> > clearly would be helped, but unfortunately wouldn't be a quick
> > drop-in, but a rather major reorganization of the regex handling.
> >
> > I had a look at "->" and I couldn't see how a slice could be used to
> > make it faster? We don't a priori know how big a slice would give us
> > what we want. This again makes Stephen's case for an iterator, but of
> > course all the iterator benefits only come when the actual function at
> > the top (in this case the json parser) are also updated to be
> > iterative.
> >
> > Committing this little change doesn't preclude an iterator, or even
> > make doing one more complicated... :)
> >
>
> Sure, but we have the choice between something that benefits just a few
> cases or one that benefits more widely.
>
> If we all only work on the narrow use cases that are right in front of us
> at the present moment then we would not have come this far. I'm sure many
> GIS applications also store JSONB data, so you would be helping the
> performance of the whole app, even if there isn't much JSON in PostGIS.

-1, I think this is blowing up the complexity of a already useful patch,
even though there's no increase in complexity due to the patch proposed
here. I totally get wanting incremental decompression for jsonb, but I
don't see why Paul should be held hostage for that.

Greetings,

Andres Freund