upb VS Protobuf.NET

> There are undeniably power users for whom every last bit of performance translates to very large sums of money, and I don’t claim to know how to satisfy them otherwise.

That is the key, right there.

In 1970, C may have been considered a general-purpose programming langauge. Today, given the landscape of languages currently available, C and C++ have a much more niche role. They are appropriate for the "power users" described above, who need every last bit of performance, at the cost of more development effort.

When I'm working in C, I'm frequently watching the assembly language output closely, making sure that I'm getting the optimizations I expect. I frequently find missed optimization bugs in compilers. In these scenarios, undefined behavior is a tool that can actually help achieve my goal. The question I'm always asking myself is: what do I have to write in C to get the assembly language output I expect? Here is an example of such a journey: https://blog.reverberate.org/2021/04/21/musttail-efficient-i...

I created the https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb project a long time ago. It's written in C, and over the years I have gotten it to a state where the speed and code size are pretty compelling. Both speed and code size are very important to the use cases where it is being used. It's a relatively small code base also. I think focused, performance-oriented kernels are the area where C makes the most sense.

More and more languages are being built on top of the "upb" C library for protobuf (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb) which is designed around arenas to avoid this very problem.

Currently Ruby, PHP, and Python are backed by upb, but this list may expand in the future.

Lua uses "chained scatter" (linked list, but links point to other entries in the same table, to maintain locality): https://github.com/lua/lua/blob/master/ltable.c

This is a good visual depiction of chained scatter: https://book.huihoo.com/data-structures-and-algorithms-with-...

Inspired by Lua, I did the same for upb (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb). I recently benchmarked upb's table vs SwissTable for a string-keyed table and found I was beating it in both insert and lookup (in insert upb is beating SwissTable by 2x).

> But yes, the serialized dict-of-arrays-of-dicts type stuff can be approached in a few ways, none of which are particularly beautiful.

For what it's worth, this sounds somewhat similar to protobuf (which also supports dicts, arrays, etc).

After spending many years trying to figure out the smallest, fastest, and simplest way to implement protobuf in https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb, the single best improvement I found was to make the entire memory management model arena-based.

When you parse an incoming request, all the little objects (messages, arrays, maps, etc) are allocated on the arena. When you are done with it, you just free the arena.

In my experience this results in code that is both simpler and faster than trying to memory-manage all of the sub-objects independently. It also integrates nicely with existing memory-management schemes: I've been able to adapt the arena model to both Ruby (tracing GC) and PHP (refcounting) runtimes. You just have to make sure that the arena itself outlives any reference to any of the objects within.

> Google's implementations, at least C++ and Java, are a bunch of bloated crap (or maybe they're very good, but for a use case that I haven't yet encountered).

As someone who has been working on protobuf-related things for >10 years, including creating a size-focused implementation (https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb), and has been working on the protobuf team for >5 years, I have a few thoughts on this.

I think it is true that protobuf C++ could be a lot more lean than it currently is. That's why I created upb (above) to begin with. But there's also a bit more to this story.

The protobuf core runtime is split into two parts, "lite" and "full". Basically the full runtime contains reflection support, while the lite runtime omits it. The full runtime is much larger than the lite runtime. If you don't need runtime reflection for your protos, it's better to use "lite" by using "option optimize_for = LITE_RUNTIME" in your .proto file (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#op...). That will cut out a huge amount of overhead in your binary. On the downside, you won't get functionality that requires reflection, including text format, JSON, or DebugString().

In addition to this, even the lite runtime can get "lighter" if you compile your binary to statically link the runtime and strip unused symbols with -ffunction-sections/-fdata-sections and gc-sections in the linker. Some parts of the lite runtime are only used in unusual situations, like ExtensionSet which is only used if your protos use proto2 extensions (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#ex...). If you avoid this stuff, the lite runtime is quite light.

However, there is also the issue of the generated code size. The size of the generated code is generally quite large, even for lite. You are getting a generated parser, serializer, CopyFrom(), MergeFrom(), etc for every message you define. If your schema is of any size, this quickly adds up and can dwarf the size of the actual runtime. For this reason, C++ also supports "option optimize_for = CODE_SIZE" which does everything reflectively instead of generating code. This means you pay the fixed size hit from the full runtime, but the generated code size is much smaller. On the downside, "optimize_for = CODE_SIZE" has a severe speed penalty.

I have long had the goal of making https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb competitive with protobuf C++ in speed while achieving much smaller code size. With the benefit of 10 years of hindsight and many wrong turns, upb is meeting and even surpassing these goals. It is an order of magnitude smaller, both in the core runtime and the generated code, and after some recent experiments it is beginning to significantly surpass it in speed also (I want to publish these results soon, but the code is on this branch: https://github.com/protocolbuffers/upb/pull/310).

upb has downsides that prevent it from being fully "user ready" yet: the API is still not 100% stable, there is no C++ API for the generated code yet (and C APIs for protobuf are relatively verbose and painful), it has a bunch of legacy APIs sitting around that I am just on the verge of being able to finally delete, and it doesn't support proto2 extensions yet. On the upside, it is 100% conformant on every other protobuf feature, it has full binary and JSON support, it supports reflection if you want it but also lets you omit it for code size savings.

I hope 2021 is a year when I'll be able to publish more about these results, and when upb will be a more viable choice for users who want a smaller protobuf implementation.

This article requires that reader is familar with core concept of Akka.NET serialization (see https://getakka.net/articles/serialization/serialization.html) and ProtoBuf-Net library (see https://github.com/protobuf-net/protobuf-net).

The model used, a simple invoice which uses protobuf-net 1 NuGet package to store information in a binary file.

Not sure if it works with gRPC but I really like how Protobuf.NET uses attributes like other serializers instead of needing to write a .proto and generate (not-very-C#-friendly) classes from it. Well, until you need to interop with other languages.

I mentioned JSON, but there are many formats that are much more efficient. I can mention FlatBuffers, MessagePack and ProtoBuf. These are the ones I've used myself, and personally I'm most comfortable with MessagePack and ProtoBuf. I don't think the performance would be an issue if you had to choose between these three, it's mostly the API that is different.

The closest way would be using Grpc.Web + Protobuf.net. The overall experience is pretty close to WCF server + Client where you share a common interface and let the client and server just call through those.

Grpc Web with Blazor WASM is a really pleasant experience so far imo for my personal projects at home. You have strongly typed models and methods and you have choice on sharing the contract between client and server if you're using code first instead of proto IDL files (e.g. protobuf-net).

It's pretty straight-forward to follow the protobuf-net docs to serialize the report, but we should really GZIP the stream for sending to reduce bandwidth consumption and improve performance:

There are a number of Protobuf implementations for .NET Core, but I like protobuf-net as it's a nice, clean, Apache 2.0 Licensed implementation. It is also supported by protogen, a great online generator that will output protobuf-net classes ready for use (for its CSharp profile). If you open the latest schema from the link here, you can simply paste into the generator. NOTE: At the time of writing, [(js_preEncoded)=true] isn't supported by the generator, and can be removed from the proto schema.

> Protobuf-java is a little heavy [...] Just depending on the library adds 1.6MB and nearly 700 classes before you even generate your own message classes.

By comparison, protobuf-net [1] is about 260KB and 68 classes. Python's [2] is a 1MB package download (with source).

Why's the Java one so big?

[1] https://github.com/protobuf-net/protobuf-net

[2] https://pypi.org/project/protobuf