Re: python performance
if you need anything which is yet not supported by the php version, please let me know, i will add it for you regards Nikolai On 20 Mrz., 14:02, dvirsky dvir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I'm considering using protobuf for a client-server project where the client is c++, and the server isphpor python running on apache. I did a comparison of the unofficial and incompletephplibrary of protobuf, and the official python implementation. I expected them to be pretty much the same, perhaps with the python version being faster. I tested only serialization of very long messages (4-8kB), since this is what the server will do mostly. the results were that thephpversion is roughly 10 times faster than the python version (which was compiled optimized for speed). On my test,phpmanaged to serialize about 150 messages per second, and python about 15. running with psyco i got it up to 25 but it's still very slow. Is this reasonable? could I be doing something wrong? It just doesn't make sense. Both, btw, compared badly to serializing a similar message with thePHPJSON library, which managed to do roughly 1500 serializations per second. Which I would expect, as it's compiled intoPHPand not native. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: python performance
Thanks, It seems as though the serialization is the slowest part, as i would expect. My earlier test was composing one message and serializing it over and over again. Just composing the message over and over again is much faster - about 10 times faster. Anyway, I think I'll pass on protobuf for this project, although it looks very cool and would definitely be my choice if both ends were cpp. On Mar 20, 8:35 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote: The Python implementation is pretty slow right now. I'm not familiar with the PHP implementation so couldn't say exactly why it is faster, but it's not terribly surprising. Petar is working on making the Python implementation use native C++ code for a lot of operations, which should make it much faster. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:02 AM, dvirsky dvir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I'm considering using protobuf for a client-server project where the client is c++, and the server is php or python running on apache. I did a comparison of the unofficial and incomplete php library of protobuf, and the official python implementation. I expected them to be pretty much the same, perhaps with the python version being faster. I tested only serialization of very long messages (4-8kB), since this is what the server will do mostly. the results were that the php version is roughly 10 times faster than the python version (which was compiled optimized for speed). On my test, php managed to serialize about 150 messages per second, and python about 15. running with psyco i got it up to 25 but it's still very slow. Is this reasonable? could I be doing something wrong? It just doesn't make sense. Both, btw, compared badly to serializing a similar message with the PHP JSON library, which managed to do roughly 1500 serializations per second. Which I would expect, as it's compiled into PHP and not native. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: python performance
If you are able to use the other P (Perl) instead of Python or PHP, http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-perlxs will give performance comparable to PHP JSON, I would bet. -dave On Mar 20, 11:59 am, dvirsky dvir...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, It seems as though the serialization is the slowest part, as i would expect. My earlier test was composing one message and serializing it over and over again. Just composing the message over and over again is much faster - about 10 times faster. Anyway, I think I'll pass on protobuf for this project, although it looks very cool and would definitely be my choice if both ends were cpp. On Mar 20, 8:35 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote: The Python implementation is pretty slow right now. I'm not familiar with the PHP implementation so couldn't say exactly why it is faster, but it's not terribly surprising. Petar is working on making the Python implementation use native C++ code for a lot of operations, which should make it much faster. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:02 AM, dvirsky dvir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I'm considering using protobuf for a client-server project where the client is c++, and the server is php or python running on apache. I did a comparison of the unofficial and incomplete php library of protobuf, and the official python implementation. I expected them to be pretty much the same, perhaps with the python version being faster. I tested only serialization of very long messages (4-8kB), since this is what the server will do mostly. the results were that the php version is roughly 10 times faster than the python version (which was compiled optimized for speed). On my test, php managed to serialize about 150 messages per second, and python about 15. running with psyco i got it up to 25 but it's still very slow. Is this reasonable? could I be doing something wrong? It just doesn't make sense. Both, btw, compared badly to serializing a similar message with the PHP JSON library, which managed to do roughly 1500 serializations per second. Which I would expect, as it's compiled into PHP and not native. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
