qson
jvm-serializers
qson | jvm-serializers | |
---|---|---|
1 | 7 | |
28 | 3,277 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 4.4 | |
about 1 year ago | 8 months ago | |
Java | Java | |
Apache License 2.0 | - |
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.
qson
-
The state of Java Object Serialization libraries in Q2 2023
https://github.com/quarkusio/qson also does code generation at build time using the Quarkus infrastructure and thus avoids reflection at runtime
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?
jsoniter - jsoniter (json-iterator) is fast and flexible JSON parser available in Java and Go
fury-benchmarks - Serialization Benchmarks for fury with other libraries
DSL-JSON - High performance JVM JSON library
Apache Avro - Apache Avro is a data serialization system.
jsonbeans - Java object graphs, to and from JSON automatically
zio-json - Fast, secure JSON library with tight ZIO integration.
opentelemetry-specificatio
janino - Janino is a super-small, super-fast Java™ compiler.
grpc-dotnet - gRPC for .NET
honeycomb-opentelemetry-go - Honeycomb's OpenTelemetry Go SDK distribution
MemoryPack - Zero encoding extreme performance binary serializer for C# and Unity.
skywalking - APM, Application Performance Monitoring System