On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:12 PM Steve Baldwin <steve.baldwin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh I like that, and thanks! It seems a little clearer to me, but maybe that's because records still seem more familiar than json. Applying the quantitative cumbersome-syntax test, this clocks in 8 characters shorter than the other one (99 vs. 107). But this has a big advantage in that you can just add other fields to the query, thusly:
=> select f.id, f.f1,f.f2,array_agg(t.key2) from foo as f, jsonb_to_recordset(js) as t(key2 text) group by f.id;
id | f1 | f2 | array_agg
----+-----------+------------+--------------------
2 | My Text 2 | My Text 2a | {r2k2val,r2k2val2}
1 | My Text 1 | My Text 1a | {r1k2val,r1k2val2}
(2 rows)
id | f1 | f2 | array_agg
----+-----------+------------+--------------------
2 | My Text 2 | My Text 2a | {r2k2val,r2k2val2}
1 | My Text 1 | My Text 1a | {r1k2val,r1k2val2}
(2 rows)
That clocks in at 109 characters, compared to 178 for the similar query we previously had:
SELECT id,f1,f2,array_agg AS vals FROM foo LEFT JOIN (select id, array_agg(fa) from (select id, (jsonb_array_elements(js)->>'key') as fa from foo) g group by id) foo2 USING (id);
Upgrade to v12+ for access to simpler/cleaner.
I can't upgrade just yet, but that is something to look forward to. Out of curiosity, what would an equivalent query look like in V12?
Cheers,
Ken
AGENCY Software
A Free Software data system
By and for non-profits
(253) 245-3801
learn more about AGENCY or
follow the discussion.
