Re: [json] Universal Binary JSON Specification
- View SourceBtw, forgot to add:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:15 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Using the test-data from the popular JVM-Serializer Benchmark project (https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki) in Java, I show a 28% reduction in file size along with a 73% faster deserialization step as compared to Jackson's ObjectMapper.
It would be great if you could contribute this to jvm-serialziers, I
can help in getting it merged.
> NOTE: Jackson is currently the fastest JSON parsing library in Java, however I believe there are ways to make the ObjectMapper run faster i just haven't tuned it yet so 73% is likely not representative of final numbers.
> My goals are to gun for (on average) a 30% reduction in file size and 50% faster serialization/deserialization processing.
> For what it is worth, I *expect* serialization/deserialization to run on par with Java manual encoding/decoding which is labeled "java-M" in the JVM Serialization Benchmark results (3rd fastest).
I actually suspect you are wrong there -- since you require
length-prefixing, writing is going to be slower, at least for longer
But would be happy to be proven wrong.
-+ Tatu +-
- View SourceOn Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
> The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
> So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.
-+ Tatu +-