On 22/02/16 05:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes:
On 19/02/16 10:10, �lvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
Oleg and I discussed recently that a really good addition to a GSoC
item would be to study whether it's convenient to have a binary
serialization format for jsonb over the wire.
Seems a bit risky for a GSoC project. We don't know if a different
serialization format will be a win, or whether we want to do it in the
end, until the benchmarking is done. It's also not clear what we're
trying to achieve with the serialization format: smaller on-the-wire
size, faster serialization in the server, faster parsing in the client,
or what?
Another variable is that your answers might depend on what format you
assume the client is trying to convert from/to. (It's presumably not
text JSON, but then what is it?)
As I mentioned before, there are many well-known JSON serialization
formats, like:
- http://ubjson.org/
- http://cbor.io/
- http://msgpack.org/
- BSON (ok, let's skip that one hehehe)
- http://wiki.fasterxml.com/SmileFormatSpec
Having said that, I'm not sure that risk is a blocking factor here.
History says that a large fraction of our GSoC projects don't result
in a commit to core PG. As long as we're clear that "success" in this
project isn't measured by getting a feature committed, it doesn't seem
riskier than any other one. Maybe it's even less risky, because there's
less of the success condition that's not under the GSoC student's control.
Agreed :)
Álvaro
--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
-----------
8Kdata
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
