On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > If BSON is simply in effect an efficient encoding of JSON, then it's not > clear to me that we would want another type at all. Rather, we might want to > consider storing the data in this supposedly more efficient format, and > maybe also some conversion routines.
An issue is that the current JSON data type implementation preserves the original text (meaning if you say '[1,2,"\u0020" ]'::JSON, it will yield '[1,2,"\u0020" ]' rather than '[1,2," "]' . I haven't researched BSON much at all, but I seriously doubt that part of its spec includes handling external JSON encoding details like whitespace and superfluous escapes. Even though I spent a long time implementing it, the original text preservation feature should be dropped, in my opinion. Users tend to care more about the data inside of a JSON value rather than how it's encoded, and replacement of values can have funky consequences on indentation when working with indented JSON text (similar to how pasting in a text editor puts pasted content at the wrong indent level). By dropping original text preservation, in the future (or now), JSON could be encoded in BSON (or a more efficient format) in the database rather than in JSON-encoded text. Also, an idea would be to make json_send and json_recv (binary JSON send/receive) use BSON rather than JSON-encoded text, as sending/receiving JSON-encoded text is exactly what text send/receive do. Joey Adams -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
