What kind of "other abstractions" would you like to turn off?
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Anand Srivastava <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> We have been using Thrift objects when we want to serialize to disk and
> back (in C++ and Java). While profiling, we have noticed that hard written
> serializers for our specific objects can perform much better (~2x) than
> Thrift. While we understand it is unreasonable to expect Thrift to match
> their performance given the generic usecases it solves, we have been were
> wondering if we can somehow keep using the auto-generated
> serialization-deserialization code but not pay for the other abstractions
> provided.
> So, we don't care about the language/architecture independence provided or
> the backward compatibility. And suggestions on possible performance
> improvements as a tradeoff for some features would be useful.
>
> We have tried TBinaryProtocol and TCompactProtocol along with
> TMemoryBuffer.
>
> The objects we are interested in as similar to the one below:
>
> Java:
> public class MeasureSet {
> public double[] simple;
> public ArrayList<ArrayList<Long>> complex;
> public ArrayList<ByteBuffer> others;
> }
>
> IDL:
> struct ThriftMeasureSet {
> 1:list<double> simple,
> 2:list<list<i64>> complex,
> 3:list<binary> others
> }
>
> We have tried Protocol Buffer as well and find their performance to be
> similar to Thrift. Any pointers as welcome.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Anand
>
