Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>, rafia.sabih@enterprisedb.com, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-20T16:27:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Add support for partial TOAST decompression
- 4d0e994eed83 12.0 landed
-
Remove remaining hard-wired OID references in the initial catalog data.
- 3aa0395d4ed3 12.0 cited
-
Rephrase references to "time qualification".
- ebcc7bf949ba 12.0 cited
On 2019-02-20 08:39:38 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 23:09, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 7:25 AM Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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