> Where can I send you mail? My e-mail is ... I'll ping you
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 15:12, Shweta Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks again Marc. Yes Deserialization code is as you listed below. I was > using protobuf-net 2.4.0.0 but then moved to older version currently being > used across our code base, 2.0.0.668, to see any impact. Where can I send > you mail? My e-mail is [email protected]. I can get these objects > serialized to a binary file and send over to you. > > public T Deserialize(byte[] serializedObject) > { > using (var ms = new MemoryStream(serializedObject)) > { > return (T)Serializer.Deserialize(ms, null, typeof(T)); > } > } > > Thanks much! > Shweta > > On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 7:34:58 AM UTC-7, Marc Gravell wrote: >> >> > using StackExchange.Redis MGET >> >> Yeah, there's really no way for me to dodge this, is there? ;p >> >> Minor note: your parallel code currently doesn't actually allow any >> meaningful parallelism - you *might* want to move the "lock" so that you >> only "lock" around the "Add". You're also currently doing a "sync over >> async" here - I'd probably use: >> >> var results = db.StringGet(rKeys); >> >> but that is unrelated to the real question here. The >> _serializer.Deserialize(RedisValue) API you're using isn't something that >> is directly exposed on protobuf-net, so I'd be grateful if I could see that >> code. I'm *guessing* it is something like: >> >> using (var ms = new MemoryStream((byte[])value)) >> { >> return Serializer.Deserialize<MyObject>(ms); >> } >> >> ? >> >> If that is right, then ... it gets tricky; to give a really meaningful >> analysis, I'd kinda have to see something akin to realistic data. Is there >> anything I can do to setup an indicative minimal repro here? Or is there >> anything you can share with me that I can work with to try and repro what >> you're seeing? My preference here is a randomized data creation script like >> my example, but if the data doesn't contain anything privileged, an RDB >> file (from redis) might work, too. >> >> As I say: I can a range of in-progress changes that might help *anyway*, >> but it would be great if I could actually test things to see how it >> performs. If this allows me to confirm that the proposed changes make a >> good improvement, I can always just ship those! But there may be other >> things I can do here too. The key thing is again, to emphasize: me being >> able to reproduce what you're seeing - because right now, I'm getting ~1ms >> times. >> >> Marc >> > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Regards, Marc -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
