Hi Florian: Thanks for your suggestion. It's helpful. Thanks, -Steven
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:07:55 PM UTC+8 Florian Enner wrote: > There are many community benchmarks that include protobuf and/or grpc, but > whether they are representative of your use case is a different question. > Most comparisons I've seen are either basic, use suboptimal message > definitions, or have been specifically designed to make Protobuf look bad > (e.g. benchmarks from competitors that are trying to establish themselves). > IMO it's best to create your own benchmarks if you need reliable results > for your specific use case. > > Here are a few guidelines for message definitions that should generally > help performance: > > - prefer field ids below 16 (5 bit) > - avoid deep message nesting > - use varint types (uint32, sint32) for small numbers (ideally max 7 > bit, i.e., 0-128) > - use fixed-width types (fixed32, sfixed32, etc.) for large numbers > - use with caution: groups can be serialized more efficiently than > messages, but they have been deprecated and the syntax is terrible > > The performance impact also depends a lot on the actual implementation, > e.g., deep nesting hits harder on implementations that don't cache the > computed size. > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:00:44 AM UTC+2 Steven L Wang wrote: > >> Hi: >> Is there any benchmark for protoc buffers, which is supported or used >> by the community? I can find many benchmarks for protoc buffers on the >> internet. But I don't know which one is advocated by the community. >> >> Thanks, >> -Steven >> > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/0a2e2150-08ea-4c03-a306-05cbde34db77n%40googlegroups.com.
