typedload VS ucall

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/

I wrote typedload, which is significantly faster than pydantic. Just uses normal dataclasses/attrs/NamedTuple, has a better API and is pure Python!

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/

Type checking was included, and union support is trivial to add. We have just added a feature request and will release it in a few days.

You are right! For the convenience of Python users, we have to introspect the messages and parse JSON into Python objects. Every member of every dictionary being allocated on heap.

To make it as fast as possible we don't use PyBind, NanoBind, SWIG, or any high-level tooling. Our Python bindings are a pure CPython integration. There is just no way to beat that combo, not that I know.

https://github.com/unum-cloud/ujrpc/blob/main/src/python.c

TLDR: UJRPC reaches 230K TCP/IP round-trips per second on 1 socket. Faster than gRPC and much faster than FastAPI.