| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| 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, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
| Date: | 2010-08-16 23:34:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20100816233451.GD3911@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
1;2403;0cOn Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:02:47PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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)
Any such long string wont be representable in pg anyway. Or am I
missing something here?
Besides that I have to say that I find it pretty strange to design a
supposedly generic file-format with a 32bit signed integer length...
> , and not all BSON objects can be represented in JSON (if the BSON object has an
> array). Or do we invent our own flavors of one or both to cover the
> mismatch?
The BSON representation could be purely internal...
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-08-16 23:57:10 | Re: shared_preload_libraries is ignored in single user mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-16 23:24:37 | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |