On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Terry Laurenzo <t...@laurenzo.org> wrote: > - It is directly iterable without parsing and/or constructing an AST > - It is its own representation. If iterating and you want to tear-off a > value to be returned or used elsewhere, its a simple buffer copy plus some > bit twiddling. > - It is conceivable that clients already know how to deal with BSON, > allowing them to work with the internal form directly (ala MongoDB) > - It stores a wider range of primitive types than JSON-text. The most > important are Date and binary.
When last I looked at that, it appeared to me that what BSON could represent was a subset of what JSON could represent - in particular, that it had things like a 32-bit limit on integers, or something along those lines. Sounds like it may be neither a superset nor a subset, in which case I think it's a poor choice for an internal representation of JSON. -- 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
