Re: Tackling JsonPath support

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.
> ​
>
>