On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Evan Jones wrote:
> Hm. It is a little interesting that it would use so much more memory
> than using Java serializable ...
>
Protocol buffers need to keep track of which fields are set. Currently this
is done using a bool for each field. Perhaps it would be mo
On Oct 30, 2009, at 22:24 , jta23 wrote:
> The protobuf version of my code uses about 950MB of memory (the Java
> Serializable version is only using around 650MB) and I had the java -
> Xmx flag set too low; in reality protobuf is extremely fast compared
> to Java Serializable:
Hm. It is a little
Ah. So Java Serialization has no good reason to be slower... but
apparently it is! Hah! :)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:24 PM, jta23 wrote:
>
> I'm a bit embarrassed :)
>
> The protobuf version of my code uses about 950MB of memory (the Java
> Serializable version is only using around 650MB) an
I'm a bit embarrassed :)
The protobuf version of my code uses about 950MB of memory (the Java
Serializable version is only using around 650MB) and I had the java -
Xmx flag set too low; in reality protobuf is extremely fast compared
to Java Serializable:
Java Serializable:
12,000 msgs/sec
Proto
On Oct 29, 2009, at 16:45 , jta23 wrote:
> and send them like this:
>
> byte size = (byte)msg.getSerializedSize();
> outputStream.writeByte(size);
> outputStream.write(msg.toByteArray());
You should do the following instead:
1. Create a CodedOutputStream wrapping your OutputStream.
2. Use Coded
Thanks for the info. I thought the Java serialization metadata would
have been large compared to the relevant data, but I guess not!
On Oct 29, 5:42 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> It sounds plausible. There's no fundamental reason why protocol buffers
> should be faster than Java serialization, at l
It sounds plausible. There's no fundamental reason why protocol buffers
should be faster than Java serialization, at least for simple objects like
yours composed of a set of primitive values. Since Java serialization is
implemented by the VM, it can probably optimize better than protobufs can.
H
