Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Terry Laurenzo <tj(at)laurenzo(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)
Date: 2010-10-19 14:44:44
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Lha2-PtnKNT3OTjg=HzEVWraubT523PemxJZB@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Terry Laurenzo <tj(at)laurenzo(dot)org> wrote:
>    - It is directly iterable without parsing and/or constructing an AST
>    - It is its own representation.  If iterating and you want to tear-off a
> value to be returned or used elsewhere, its a simple buffer copy plus some
> bit twiddling.
>    - It is conceivable that clients already know how to deal with BSON,
> allowing them to work with the internal form directly (ala MongoDB)
>    - It stores a wider range of primitive types than JSON-text.  The most
> important are Date and binary.

When last I looked at that, it appeared to me that what BSON could
represent was a subset of what JSON could represent - in particular,
that it had things like a 32-bit limit on integers, or something along
those lines. Sounds like it may be neither a superset nor a subset,
in which case I think it's a poor choice for an internal
representation of JSON.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-10-19 14:57:30 Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-19 14:41:08 Re: leaky views, yet again