fury-benchmarks
jvm-serializers
fury-benchmarks | jvm-serializers | |
---|---|---|
4 | 7 | |
2 | 3,277 | |
- | - | |
5.9 | 4.4 | |
14 days ago | 8 months ago | |
Java | Java | |
- | - |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
fury-benchmarks
- FLaNK Stack Weekly for 20 Nov 2023
- FLaNK Stack Weekly for 30 Oct 2023
-
Fury: 170x faster than JDK, fast serialization powered by JIT and Zero-copy
1) Fury is 41.6x faster than jackson for Struct serialization 2) Fury is 65.6x faster than jackson for Struct deserialization 3) Fury is 9.4x faster than jackson for MediaContent serialization 4) Fury is 9.6x faster than jackson for MediaContent deserialization
see https://github.com/chaokunyang/fury-benchmarks for detailed benchmark code.
jvm-serializers
-
Fury: 170x faster than JDK, fast serialization powered by JIT and Zero-copy
Compared with protobuf, fury is 3.2x faster. When comparing with avro, fury is 5.3x faster. Compared with flatbuffers, fury is 4.8x faster. See https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki for detailed benchmark data
-
The state of Java Object Serialization libraries in Q2 2023
First, there's benchmarks here if you haven't seen it: jvm-serializers. Not terribly scientific, but it's something. To make any decision, you really need to benchmark your own object graph and it's important to configure the serializer for your particular usage. Still, it is sort of useful for comparing frameworks. It would be interesting to see how Loial performs there. Ping me if you add it.
-
Up to 100x Faster FastAPI with simdjson and io_uring on Linux 5.19+
It depends. Some binary encodings such as flatbuffer are actually slower than some JSON libraries. There's a wide range of performance even in the JSON libraries themselves. Generally the faster JSON libraries are the ones that work on a predefined schema and so are able to generate code specifically for that JSON.
-
Go standard library: structured, leveled logging
> I'm surprised this is up for debate.
I looked into logging in protobuf when I was seeing if there was a better binary encoding for ring-buffer logging, along the same lines as nanolog:
https://tersesystems.com/blog/2020/11/26/queryable-logging-w...
What I found was that it's typically not the binary encoding vs string encoding that makes a difference. The biggest factors are "is there a predefined schema", "is there a precompiler that will generate code for this schema", and "what is the complexity of the output format". With that in mind, if you are dealing with chaotic semi-structured data, JSON is pretty good, and actually faster than some binary encodings:
https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki/Newer-Results...
-
Scala 3.0 serialization
You could use any of the JVM serialisers which should still work.
What are some alternatives?
MemoryPack - Zero encoding extreme performance binary serializer for C# and Unity.
Apache Avro - Apache Avro is a data serialization system.
MessagePack for C# (.NET, .NET Core, Unity, Xamarin) - Extremely Fast MessagePack Serializer for C#(.NET, .NET Core, Unity, Xamarin). / msgpack.org[C#]
zio-json - Fast, secure JSON library with tight ZIO integration.
grpc-dotnet - gRPC for .NET
opentelemetry-specificatio
incubator-fury - A blazingly fast multi-language serialization framework powered by JIT and zero-copy.
janino - Janino is a super-small, super-fast Java™ compiler.
orbital - Orbital automates integration between data sources (APIs, Databases, Queues and Functions). BFF's, API Composition and ETL pipelines that adapt as your specs change.
screenshot-to-code - Drop in a screenshot and convert it to clean code (HTML/Tailwind/React/Vue)
honeycomb-opentelemetry-go - Honeycomb's OpenTelemetry Go SDK distribution