HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
sanity-io
mendoza
Go2020–2025
sanity-io / mendoza

mendoza

Differ for structured documents (JSON)

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
278GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Differ for structured documents (JSON)

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-10-30 18:10:38 UTC to 2025-06-01 11:35:46 UTC.

0122020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
You could stream incrementally like this without explicitly demarcating the "holes". You can simply send the unfinished JSON (with empty arrays as the holes), then compute the next iteration and send a delta, then compute the next and send a delta, and so on. A good delta format is Mendoza [1] (full disclosure: I work at Sanity where we developed this), which has Go and JS/TypeScript [2] implementations. It expresses diffs and patches as very compact operations. Another way is to use binary digging. For example, zstd has some nifty built-in support for diffing where you can use the previous version as a dictionary and then produce a diff that can be applied to that version, although we found Mendoza to often be as small as zstd. This approach also requires treating the JSON as bytes and keeping the previous binary snapshot in memory for t
Read the rest
he next delta, whereas a Mendoza patch can be applied to a JavaScript value, so you only need the deserialized data. This scheme would force you to compare the new version for what's changed rather than plug in exactly what's changed, but I believe React already needs to do that? Also, I suppose the Mendoza applier could be extended to return a list of keys that were affected by a patch application. [1] https://github.com/sanity-io/mendoza [2] https://github.com/sanity-io/mendoza-js
In Progressive JSON
Ehm… As I was profiling the code base I found that most of the time was spent hashing the data. The hashing part is quite critical for correctness and any collisions will cause it to generate incorrect. Initially I used SHA256 and was thinking about ways to speed it up. One experiment I did was to tweak it to use 256 bits internally, but then only output 64 bits. This turned out to help quite a lot. Of course, later I got a bit anxious about only using 64 bits so I increased it to 128 bits: https://github.com/sanity-io/mendoza/commit/42c7dee4b42bfb4c... At this point all of this is probably completely moot.
In Mendoza: Use stack machines to compute efficient JSON diffs
Author of the article here. The format itself is not strictly speaking coupled to JSON: https://github.com/sanity-io/mendoza/blob/master/docs/format.... If you can encode int8 and string more efficiently, then you can save some bytes with a custom binary encoding. However, you always need to be able to represent JSON as well. If a part of the JSON file isn't present in the old version, then you encode that part by the plain JSON. > and moving the "symbol table" (string data) to the end? … you could also compress redundant symbols into single strings. Sounds interesting, but in my experience these types of tricks are usually not paying off compared to just sending it through Gzip afterwards.
In Mendoza: Use stack machines to compute efficient JSON diffs

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.