We are working to avoid this limitation. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Documentation of jsonb tells that jsonb documents should be kept at a >> reasonable size to reduce lock contention, but there is no mention of >> size limitation for indexes: >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/datatype-json.html > > It seems like your complaint is that this warrants special > consideration from the jsonb docs, due to this general limitation > being particularly likely to affect jsonb users. Is that accurate? > > The structure of the JSON in your test case is quite atypical, since > there is one huge string containing each of the translations, rather > than a bunch of individual array elements (one per translation) or a > bunch of object pairs. > > As it happens, just this morning I read that MongoDB's new version 2.6 > now comes with stricter enforcement of key length: > http://docs.mongodb.org/master/release-notes/2.6-compatibility/#index-key-length-incompatibility > . While previous versions just silently failed to index values that > were inserted, there is now a 1024 limit imposed on the total size of > indexed values. > > -- > Peter Geoghegan > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
