| From: | Terry Laurenzo <tj(at)laurenzo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
| Date: | 2010-10-24 16:36:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin3vKF3Z6YPp=A7zYMNGSnRJ8r3ViKcmgxOqy+c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Yeah, my concern is not whether the overhead will be zero; it's
> whether it will be small, yet allow large gains on other operations.
> Like, how much slower will it be to pull out a moderately complex 1MB
> JSON blob (not just a big string) out of a single-row, single-column
> table? If it's 5% slower, that's probably OK, since this is a
> reasonable approximation of a worst-case scenario. If it's 50%
> slower, that sounds painful. It would also be worth testing with a
> much smaller size, such as a 1K object with lots of internal
> structure. In both cases, all data cached in shared_buffers, etc.
>
> Then on the flip side how do we do on val[37]["whatever"]? You'd like
> to hope that this will be significantly faster than the text encoding
> on both large and small objects. If it's not, there's probably not
> much point.
>
>
We're on the same page. I'm implementing the basic cases now and then will
come up with some benchmarks.
Terry
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-24 16:48:04 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-24 16:29:40 | Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage |