From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
Date: | 2014-01-29 20:46:42 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0z=m--i_vPUe13t5Pzr5W5K6545wOQWGFvVxKx9aLVeiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Only change in functionality is the addition of casts between jsonb and
> json.
>
> The other changes are the merge with the new json functions code, and
> rearrangement of the docs changes to make them less ugly. Essentially I
> moved the indexterm tags right out of the table as is done in some other
> parts pf the docs. That makes the entry tags much clearer to read.
I think the opening paragraphs contrasting json/jsonb be needs
refinement. json is going to be slightly faster than jsonb for input
*and* output. For example, in one application I store fairly large
json objects containing pre-compiled static polygon data that is
simply flipped up to google maps. This case will likely be pessimal
for jsonb. For the next paragaph, I'd like to expand it a bit on
'specialized needs' and boil it down to specific uses cases.
Basically, json will likely be more compact in most cases and slightly
faster for input/output; jsonb would be preferred in any context
where processing, or searching or extensive server side parsing is
employed.
If you agree, I'd be happy to do that...
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-01-29 20:47:31 | Re: Suspicion of a compiler bug in clang: using ternary operator in ereport() |
Previous Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-01-29 20:37:54 | Re: Suspicion of a compiler bug in clang: using ternary operator in ereport() |