3 ms·
If you mean limited by available memory, then sure but that does not apply just to key size. If you mean something else, could you elaborate?
by hvdijk 5y ago
If you mean limited by available memory, then sure but that does not apply just to key size. If you mean something else, could you elaborate?
- 01acheru 5y agoI guess it is about different implementations of some not properly formalized parts of the JSON spec. There was also an article here some time ago but I cannot find it right now.
- forty 5y agoI assume JSON implementations have a some limit on the key size (or on the whole document which limits the key size), hopefully far below the available memory.
- hvdijk 5y agoI assume and hope that they do not, if there is no rule stating that they are invalid. There are valid reasons for JSON to massive keys. A simple one: depending on the programming language and libraries used, an unordered array ["a","b","c"] might be better mapped as a dictionary {"a":1,"b":1,"c":1}. Now all of your keys are semantically values, and any limit imposed on keys only makes sense if the same limit is also imposed on values.
- forty 5y agoYes absolutely, in practice the limit seems to be on the document size rather than on keys specifically. That said it still sets a limit on the key size (to something a bit less that the max full size), and some JSON documents valid for a given JSON implentation might not be parsable by others, in which case the Yaml parsers are no exceptions ;) I'm not even sure why I'm playing the devil's advocate, I hate Yaml actually :D
- ionicgiraffe 5y agoAnother reason to have a limit well below the computer's memory capacity is that one could find ill-formed documents in the wild, e.g., an unclosed quotation mark, causing the "rest' of a potentially large file to be read as a key, which can quickly snowball (imagine if you need to store the keys in a database, in a log, if your algorithms need to copy the keys, etc.)