On 2024-04-08 Mo 14:24, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Michael pointed out over at [1] that the new tiny.json is pretty
> inscrutable given its size, and I have to agree. Attached is a patch
> to pare it down 98% or so. I think people wanting to run the
> performance comparisons will need to come up with their own gigantic
> files.
Let's see if we can do a bit better than that. Maybe a script to
construct a larger input for the speed test from the smaller file.
Should be pretty simple.
>
> Michael, with your "Jacob might be a nefarious cabal of
> state-sponsored hackers" hat on, is this observable enough, or do we
> need to get it smaller? I was thinking we may want to replace the URLs
> with stuff that doesn't link randomly around the Internet. Delicious
> in its original form is long gone.
>
Arguably the fact that it points nowhere is a good thing. But feel free
to replace it with something else. It doesn't have to be URLs at all.
That happened simply because it was easy to extract from a very large
piece of JSON I had lying around, probably from the last time I wrote a
JSON parser :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
