On 2024-04-08 Mo 14:24, Jacob Champion wrote:
Michael pointed out over at [1] that the new tiny.json is pretty inscrutable given its size, and I have to agree. Attached is a patch to pare it down 98% or so. I think people wanting to run the performance comparisons will need to come up with their own gigantic files.
Let's see if we can do a bit better than that. Maybe a script to construct a larger input for the speed test from the smaller file. Should be pretty simple.
Michael, with your "Jacob might be a nefarious cabal of state-sponsored hackers" hat on, is this observable enough, or do we need to get it smaller? I was thinking we may want to replace the URLs with stuff that doesn't link randomly around the Internet. Delicious in its original form is long gone.
Arguably the fact that it points nowhere is a good thing. But feel free to replace it with something else. It doesn't have to be URLs at all. That happened simply because it was easy to extract from a very large piece of JSON I had lying around, probably from the last time I wrote a JSON parser :-)
cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
