Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mar oct 19 16:36:20 -0300 2010: > On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that > > binary encoding is the way to go. We store XML as text, for example, > > and I can't remember any complaints about that on -bugs or > > -performance, so why do we think JSON will be different? Binary > > encoding is a trade-off. A well-designed binary encoding should make > > it quicker to extract a small chunk of a large JSON object and return > > it; however, it will also make it slower to return the whole object > > (because you're adding serialization overhead). I haven't seen any > > analysis of which of those use cases is more important and why. > > Maybe someone has numbers on that for the XML type?
Like these? http://exificient.sourceforge.net/?id=performance -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
