From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
Date: | 2014-02-24 14:46:06 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xYKbUJxevvz02ZXzzeJ5kGA8BZC-e3i3kgEH0gkUqL6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Here's a draft cleanup on the JSON section of the Datatype docs. Since
> there's been a bunch of incremental patches on this, I just did a diff
> against HEAD.
>
> I looked over json-functions a bit, but am not clear on what needs to
> change there; the docs are pretty similar to other sections of
> Functions, and if they're complex it's because of the sheer number of
> JSON-related functions.
>
> Anyway, this version of datatypes introduces a comparison table, which I
> think should make things a bit clearer for users.
I still find the phrasing "as jsonb is more efficient for most
purposes" to be a bit off Basically, the text json type is faster for
serialization/deserialization pattern (not just document preservation)
and jsonb is preferred when storing json and doing repeated
subdocument accesses.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-24 14:47:01 | Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-02-24 14:34:44 | Re: Dump pageinspect to 1.2: page_header with pg_lsn datatype |