On Oct 8, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > I've always just felt more comfortable having them stored as dates to > begin with so there's no additional conversion process to extract those > year, month, etc values. > For that matter it might be slower to > convert from the JSON number in a string to a Date than from a string to a > Date. I have no idea of course.
I don’t know how SpiderMonkey does it, but dates are very often represented internally as timestamps*, so the conversion from a number would be very cheap. Whereas accessing the month/date/etc. would involve first parsing the date string to a numeric timestamp, then processing that timestamp to re-derive those fields. > I wonder if Couch stores the JSON as a > string in the DB or converted to binary. I believe CouchDB stores documents internally as serialized Erlang terms. I don’t know much about this format other than that it’s binary not ASCII. On the other hand, the docs have to be converted to JSON to be sent across the wire to the view server, and then parsed into JavaScript objects. There might be tin cans and string involved too. :p —Jens
