| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David E(dot) Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Terry Laurenzo <tj(at)laurenzo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
| Date: | 2010-10-20 00:34:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1287534832-sup-1986@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mar oct 19 16:36:20 -0300 2010:
> 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?
Like these?
http://exificient.sourceforge.net/?id=performance
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-20 00:36:56 | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
| Previous Message | Roberto Mello | 2010-10-20 00:08:24 | Re: pg_rawdump |