Hi,
New to cap'n'proto, but coming from deep familiarity with protobuf/thrift.
I was wondering if cap'n'proto needed the decomposure like protobuf into
parallel lists to reduce the wire overhead?
The use-case is something like (hopefully getting the syntax correct
writing it blind):
struct Vector2f {
x @0 :Float32;
y @1 :Float32;
}
struct Aggregate {
points @0 :List(Vector2f);
}
Do I need to transform it to
struct Aggregate {
xs @0 :List(Float32);
ys @1 :List(Float32);
}
to reduce the size on the wire or is the overhead calculus different for
Cap'n'Proto? Not sure about the overhead per-element one has vs the other.
I'm also guessing cache locality is hurt in the decomposed case which might
be an alternate axis to weigh against any wire overhead...
Thanks,
Vitali
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cap'n Proto" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/e67eac3b-e6cd-49c1-8065-8136b68a384c%40googlegroups.com.
