Re: thrift-protobuf-compare

[Scott Carey <sc...@richrelevance.com>]

I wonder if AVRO-557 has made this faster?


On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Scott Carey wrote:

> How has it changed in the sub sections of the benchmark?  Is it slower all around or only in encoding, decoding, or construction?
> 
> I recall that Specific became an IndexedRecord in this release, along with Generic.  Maybe there is something going on there.  
> 
> In any event, I think there are significant opportunities to optimize left all around.
> 
> I want to plug it in to a profiler and have a look, but won't have time to do so and act on my findings until May.  I'd use a sampling profiler, as I have found them significantly more accurate (but less precise) than an instrumenting profiler.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> 
>> Don't know if folks have seen this benchmark:
>> 
>> http://code.google.com/p/thrift-protobuf-compare/wiki/Benchmarking
>> 
>> It's a micro benchmark of Java serialization systems.  I just posted a 
>> patch to update it to use Avro 1.3.0:
>> 
>> http://code.google.com/p/thrift-protobuf-compare/issues/detail?id=23
>> 
>> Generic in 1.3.0 seems a bit faster than 1.2.0, but, unfortunately & 
>> surprisingly, specific seems a bit slower than in 1.2.0.  I think the 
>> reason that generic is faster is perhaps the switch from a hashmap to an 
>> array.  But I would have thought other optimizations would have made 
>> specific faster too, not slower.
>> 
>> Any ideas?
>> 
>> Doug
>