couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: Universal Binary JSON in CouchDB
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:48:59 GMT
Ah, that's easier. If the question is "do we support a binary format
for responses" I'd vote "no".

That doesn't mean we shouldn't improve the speed of what we have, though.


On 4 October 2011 22:43, Riyad Kalla <> wrote:
> Tim's work is certainly the catalyst for my excitement about the potential
> here for Couch.
> As Paul pointed out, the correct discussion to have at this point is really
> about "do we support a binary format for responses" and if so "which
> one"? That discussion could go on for an eternity with everyone voting for
> their favorite (protobuff, smile, messagepack, etc.).
> The only reason I bring up the "disk store format" discussion into this
> conversion is to offer a hat-tip to a future where a binary response format
> selected now may dovetail nicely with alternative binary disk formats,
> enabling the stream-directly-from-disk scenario.
> If we were to hypothetically remove the possibility of the on-disk format
> ever changing, then I suppose the decision of binary response format just
> becomes an issue of "Which one is fast and easy to generate?".
> -R
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Ladislav Thon <> wrote:
>> >
>> > That said, the ubjson spec is starting to look reasonable and capable
>> > to be an alternative content-type produced by CouchDB. If someone were
>> > to write a patch I'd review it quite enthusiastically.
>> Just FYI, there's an experimental support for MessagePack by Tim Anglade:
>> I thought it might
>> be
>> interesting in this debate... Tim says it improves performance quite a bit:
>> (Tim, if
>> you're reading this, thank's for the excellent talk!)
>> LT

View raw message