On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: >> For one thing, our storage format is different from theirs (better, >> frankly), and as a result is not compliant with their "standard". > > Not being super familiar with either BSON our JSONB what advantages are we > gaining from the difference?
BSON assumes, for example, that all integers fit in 64-bits and all floating point values can be accurately represented as float8. So not all JSON objects can be represented as BSON without loss of information. BSON also adds a bunch of extra types that are not part of JSON, like timestamps, regular expressions, and embedded documents. So not all BSON objects can be represented as JSON without loss of information. While it's tempting to think that BSON is a serialization format for JSON, and the name is meant to suggest that, it really isn't. It's just a serialization format for approximately whatever the authors thought would be useful, which happens to be kinda like JSON. Sorta. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
