Hi, I was reading this comparison yesterday and was woried about PB performance... But today I studied a little more about JSON and I would like to share this:
JSON is not at all comparable with ProtBuf, it is much much simpler. It is just a way of putting variables in a pack. ProtBuf is a much more complex system that can send *entire structures*, with an administration that make programs of *different versions* talk to each other, *back-and-forward compatible*. So I believe that comparing them is like oranges versus apples... I would appreciate more comments on this ;) Thanks, Alain Dave Bailey escreveu: > Justin, > > Thanks for writing this up; I think it's a nice "real world" example. > > I ran an equivalent test (using your same .proto files) in Perl to > compare JSON::XS, protobuf-perlxs, and Storable. I did this on an > x86_64 quad-core Xeon (2.5 GHz) and found: > > 1) Your original dns.proto (with strings), serializing and > deserializing a DnsResponse with 5000 random DnsRecord elements: > > 0.019414 seconds to serialize as 658358 bytes with JSON > 0.009672 seconds to deserialize 658358 bytes with JSON > 0.030239 seconds to serialize as 415044 bytes with protobuf-perlxs > 0.011978 seconds to deserialize 415044 bytes with protobuf-perlxs > 0.029631 seconds to serialize as 693291 bytes with Storable > 0.009553 seconds to deserialize 693291 bytes with Storabe > > 2) Your modified dns.proto (sip/dip/sport/dport), serializing and > deserializing a DnsResponse with 10000 random DnsRecord elements: > > 0.003501 seconds to serialize as 300322 bytes with JSON > 0.005016 seconds to deserialize 300322 bytes with JSON > 0.009567 seconds to serialize as 85838 bytes with protobuf-perlxs > 0.004225 seconds to deserialize 85838 bytes with protobuf-perlxs > 0.014848 seconds to serialize as 340886 bytes with Storable > 0.004669 seconds to deserialize 340886 bytes with Storabe > > I timed the actual serialization part only, and excluded the time to > generate the Perl data structure that is serialized (since that has > nothing to do with the serialization per se). With protobuf-perlxs, > deserialization is comparable in performance to JSON::XS and Storable > in Perl. Serialization is slower, but not extraordinarily slow. It > seems to be within a factor of 2 or 3. From what I know of Python, a > Python/C++ protobuf port (e.g. "protopy") would generate code that > exhibits similar performance characteristics. We have had really good > success with Perl/XS in terms of performance. I did not do a > comparison with Thrift/Perl, but I'm guessing we compare favorably. > > -dave > > On Mar 2, 8:48 am, Justin Azoff <justin.az...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 2, 10:52 am, Stephan Richter <stephan.rich...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The outcome looks about right. In the latest version of Python, even >>> simplejson has C extensions. A one order of magnitude difference between a >>> pure Python versus C implementation is about right, if not too small. I >>> would >>> have expected a difference of 20-50 times. >>> Besides the fact that this post is is far too short on details - i.e. Python >>> version, OS, hardware -- I would look at it as a great motivation to get the >>> C extensions for PB done quickly. ;-) >>> Regards, >>> Stephan >> Hi all :-) >> >> I actually posted a follow >> up:http://bouncybouncy.net/ramblings/posts/more_on_json_vs_thrift_and_pr... >> It turned out I didn't have the simplejson C extension installed... >> With that installed the speed difference was much greater. >> >> The test were run on python2.4 on a 3.2gz p4. >> >> Aside from the speed I really like Protocol Buffers, the API and docs >> are very well done :-) >> >> - Justin > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
