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
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 |