Thanks *Marc. Before I run some trial tests. May you advise some benefit of
using protocal buffer instead of a collection of primitive data type.*
On 24 January 2013 15:40, Marc Gravell <marc.grav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exact performance is very implementation- / application-specific. Yes,
> protobuf will be fast - but probably not quite as fast as a raw memcpy. But
> if you want *actual* numbers, the best thing to do would be to measure it
> on the sort of data you want to work with.
> On 24 January 2013 03:44, kira kk <kira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am considering to adopt protocol buffer in c++. However, I cannot find
>> there is any performance about it.
>> Here is my situation: the applications are distributed and
>> performance-critical C++ applications. Each application communicates
>> through message by socket.
>> So the message is serialize to a buffer and publish it. Currently memcpy
>> is used for serialization as these messages are just a collection of C++
>> primitive data type
>> and char array. So I don't know if it is suitable to switch to use
>> protocol buffer. Any suggestion is appreciated!
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.