| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Charles Pritchard" <chuck(at)jumis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
| Date: | 2010-08-16 23:24:37 |
| Message-ID: | 25452.1282001077@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Charles Pritchard <chuck(at)jumis(dot)com> wrote:
>> Storing internally as BSON (if it holds up to its premise) would
>> mean more efficient traversal of internal objects in the future,
>> if we were to have JSON-related functions/selectors.
> How about the fact that not all JSON objects can be represented in
> BSON (if the JSON object has a very long string), and not all BSON
> objects can be represented in JSON (if the BSON object has an
> array).
Well, if it's not just a binary encoding of JSON, I think we can forget
about it ... certainly it won't work in the form I was visualizing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-08-16 23:34:51 | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-16 23:09:41 | Re: Todays git migration results |