Re: Tackling JsonPath support

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2016-11-28 16:56:41
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCSj4hQ_rOODyPp91asPdiLWLqTDcjJmxwjoaUfH1h_cQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dne 28. 11. 2016 17:26 napsal uživatel "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>:
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:50:30AM -0500, Christian Convey wrote:
> > >From looking at other databases' docs, it seems like the behavior of
> > various JSON-related operators / functions are described partially in
terms
> > of a "json path expression":
> >
> > * In Oracle, "JSON_TABLE", "JSON_exists_column", "JSON_value_column":
[1]
> > * In MySQL: [2]
> > * In DB2: [3]
> > * In MS SQL Server: [4]
> > * (Whatever the Standards committee will end up producing.)
>
> There's another option we should also consider: jq
> <https://stedolan.github.io/jq/>. It's available under a
> PostgreSQL-compatible license, and has had a LOT of work put into
> correctness and performance.

we can use it for inspiration. but the syntax of this tool is little bit
too complex and too original against Json path ... jsonpath is relative
simple implementation of xpath to json

we have one proprietary syntax already, two is maybe too much :-)

>
> Best,
> David.
> --
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
>
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-11-28 17:00:29 Re: pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-11-28 16:52:07 Re: A bug of psql completion