typedload
meinheld
typedload | meinheld | |
---|---|---|
5 | 1 | |
254 | 1,450 | |
- | - | |
8.1 | 0.0 | |
7 days ago | almost 3 years ago | |
Python | C | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License |
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.
typedload
-
Show HN: Up to 100x Faster FastAPI with simdjson and io_uring on Linux 5.19
Author of typedload here!
FastAPI relies on (not so fast) pydantic, which is one of the slowest libraries in that category.
Don't expect to find such benchmarks on the pydantic documentation itself, but the competing libraries will have them.
[0] https://ltworf.github.io/typedload/
-
Pydantic vs Protobuf vs Namedtuples vs Dataclasses
I wrote typedload, which is significantly faster than pydantic. Just uses normal dataclasses/attrs/NamedTuple, has a better API and is pure Python!
- Informatica serve a qualcosa?
-
Show HN: Python framework is faster than Golang Fiber
I read all the perftests in the repo. I think they nearly all parse a structure that contains a repetition of the same or similar thing a couple hundred thousand times times and the timing function returns the min and max of 5 attempts. I just picked one example for posting.
Not a Python expert, but could the Pydantic tests be possibly not realistic and/or misleading because they are using kwargs in __init__ [1] to parse the object instead of calling the parse_obj class method [2]? According to some PEPs [3], isn't Python creating a new dictionary for that parameter which would be included in the timing? That would be unfortunate if that accounted for the difference.
Something else I think about is if a performance test doesn't produce a side effect that is checked, a smart compiler or runtime could optimize the whole benchmark away. Or too easy for the CPU to do branch prediction, etc. I think I recall that happening to me in Java in the past, but probably not happened here in Python.
[1] https://github.com/ltworf/typedload/blob/37c72837e0a8fd5f350...
[2] https://docs.pydantic.dev/usage/models/#helper-functions
[3] https://peps.python.org/pep-0692/
meinheld
-
Show HN: Python framework is faster than Golang Fiber
Django is an WebFramework, Meinheld is an WSGI Server framework.
https://github.com/django/django
https://github.com/mopemope/meinheld
So django meinheld is basically saying that i used Django served by meinheld in that benchmark.
What are some alternatives?
codon - A high-performance, zero-overhead, extensible Python compiler using LLVM
gunicorn - gunicorn 'Green Unicorn' is a WSGI HTTP Server for UNIX, fast clients and sleepy applications.
ustore - Multi-Modal Database replacing MongoDB, Neo4J, and Elastic with 1 faster ACID solution, with NetworkX and Pandas interfaces, and bindings for C 99, C++ 17, Python 3, Java, GoLang 🗄️
uwsgi - Official uWSGI docs, examples, tutorials, tips and tricks
pydantic-core - Core validation logic for pydantic written in rust
bjoern - A screamingly fast Python 2/3 WSGI server written in C.
peps - Python Enhancement Proposals
waitress - Waitress - A WSGI server for Python 3
msgspec - A fast serialization and validation library, with builtin support for JSON, MessagePack, YAML, and TOML
Werkzeug - The comprehensive WSGI web application library.
koda-validate - Typesafe, Composable Validation
netius - Readable, simple and fast asynchronous non-blocking network apps