| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Terry Laurenzo <tj(at)laurenzo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
| Date: | 2010-10-19 19:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 042F2ECE-7320-45EF-A721-B4F830EEC126@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that
> binary encoding is the way to go. We store XML as text, for example,
> and I can't remember any complaints about that on -bugs or
> -performance, so why do we think JSON will be different? Binary
> encoding is a trade-off. A well-designed binary encoding should make
> it quicker to extract a small chunk of a large JSON object and return
> it; however, it will also make it slower to return the whole object
> (because you're adding serialization overhead). I haven't seen any
> analysis of which of those use cases is more important and why.
Maybe someone has numbers on that for the XML type?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Adams | 2010-10-19 19:40:28 | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-19 19:32:57 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |