I really don't know either.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Tai <maitai.tru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. I first write the length of the byte array and then write the
> byte array all at once.
> I don't really understand why the results are completely different
> when using RMI. So you assume Java is doing some optimization?
> On Aug 28, 4:05 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > Did you try what I suggested before -- serializing to a byte array
> > and then writing that to the stream all at once?
> > It's possible that ObjectOutputStream itself is just really slow, but
> > when using native Java serialization it uses special, highly-optimized
> > paths.
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Tai <maitai.tru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I did some similar performance tests based on that:
> > >http://thrift-protobuf-compare.googlecode.com/svn
> > > My tests runs under Java and uses Protocol Buffers 2.2.0.
> > > Basically I am comparing Java Serialization vs. Protocol buffers with
> > > byte size, serialization and deserialization and my results are
> > > similar to the performance results as stated here:
> > >http://www.eishay.com/2009/03/more-on-benchmarking-java-serialization.
> > > For serialization I use ByteArrayOutputStream (data stream in
> > > ObjectOutputStream) and for deserialization its counterpart:
> > > ByteArrayInputStream (data stream in ObjectInputStream).
> > > But doing the performance test under RMI the performance results are
> > > totally different. Here Protocol Buffers is slower(!) than Java
> > > Serialization.
> > > The only difference I can see is that it uses for serialization a
> > > BufferedOutputStream (in ConnectionOutputStream) and a DataInputStream
> > > (in ConnectionInputStream).
> > > Does anybody know why that is so?
> > > Tai
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at