Consider implementing ++ operator for JSON
See original GitHub issuePossible behaviour:
db> SELECT to_json('[1,2]') ++ to_json('[3]') = to_json('[1,2,3]');
db> SELECT to_json('{"a": 1}') ++ to_json('{"b":2}') = to_json('{"a":1, "b":2}');
db> SELECT to_json('"123"') ++ to_json('"456"') = to_json('"123456"');
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Problems overloading << operator - c++ - Stack Overflow
The compiler only considers functions that it has seen before when it sees a function call, so it doesn't see the operator<< you...
Read more >Use of Operators with JSON Data
The use of arithmetic, Boolean, and comparison operators against JSON values may differ from that of standard SQL. ... Requires singleton numeric ...
Read more >nlohmann::basic_json::operator - JSON for Modern C++
nlohmann::basic_json::operator==¶ · Compares two JSON values for equality according to the following rules: · Compares a JSON value and a scalar or a...
Read more >operator T() considered harmful #958 - nlohmann/json - GitHub
operator T() considered harmful There's two subjects of importance ... So when it is int, it requires an json->int conversion by using the ......
Read more >9.15. JSON Functions and Operators - cgi .cse. unsw. edu.a u
The @? and @@ operators suppress the following errors: lacking object field or array element, unexpected JSON item type, and numeric errors. This...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
@nsidnev I was wrong, there’s no reason to put it in metaschema. I think I had been thinking that we inlined the bodies of operators defined with USING SQL, but we don’t. That looks great.
@ambv @RobertoPrevato this is a delightful feature to work on!