On Sunday, 28 June 2015 at 17:02:42 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 21:40:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> I'd have to benchmark it against something, but I'm pretty sure cerealed is fast.
>
> Faster than msgpack?

I guess I'm going to have benchmark this now... :)

Atila

On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 08:45:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 June 2015 at 17:02:42 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 21:40:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> I'd have to benchmark it against something, but I'm pretty sure cerealed is fast.
>>
>> Faster than msgpack?
>
> I guess I'm going to have benchmark this now... :)
>
> Atila

In release builds, _nearly_. Here's the benchmark program: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/17b0ed9c0204. Results below. msgpack is... fast. From the docs, cerealed seems to have more features that I actually use and need though.

Results:

DMD debug:

Cerealed: 4 secs, 987 ms, 700 μs, and 5 hnsecs
MsgPack:  1 sec, 771 ms, 713 μs, and 7 hnsecs

DMD release:

Cerealed: 2 secs, 556 ms, 714 μs, and 6 hnsecs
MsgPack:  1 sec, 89 ms, 561 μs, and 3 hnsecs


GDC debug:

Cerealed: 4 secs, 863 ms, 501 μs, and 1 hnsec
MsgPack:  2 secs, 32 ms, 53 μs, and 1 hnsec


GDC release:

Cerealed: 1 sec, 740 ms, 726 μs, and 4 hnsecs
MsgPack:  1 sec, 20 ms, 287 μs, and 3 hnsecs


LDC debug:

Cerealed: 7 secs, 711 ms, 154 μs, and 4 hnsecs
MsgPack:  3 secs, 694 ms, 566 μs, and 2 hnsecs


LDC release:

Cerealed: 1 sec, 795 ms, 380 μs, and 7 hnsecs
MsgPack:  931 ms, 355 μs, and 5 hnsecs

On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 10:22:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> I guess I'm going to have benchmark this now... :)

What about doing a memory profiling using DMD fresh builtin profiler of

http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/17b0ed9c0204

?

I'm guessing the GC might give misguiding results as your testStruct returns a relatively small data structure.

I would rather like to see a larger (randomized) structure being tested on.

You could make use of my

https://github.com/nordlow/justd/blob/master/random_ex.d

for random instance generation :)

On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 10:22:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 08:45:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Sunday, 28 June 2015 at 17:02:42 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>>> On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 21:40:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>>> I'd have to benchmark it against something, but I'm pretty sure cerealed is fast.
>>>
>>> Faster than msgpack?
>>
>> I guess I'm going to have benchmark this now... :)
>>
>> Atila
>
> In release builds, _nearly_. Here's the benchmark program: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/17b0ed9c0204. Results below. msgpack is... fast. From the docs, cerealed seems to have more features that I actually use and need though.
>
> Results:
>
> DMD debug:
>
> Cerealed: 4 secs, 987 ms, 700 μs, and 5 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  1 sec, 771 ms, 713 μs, and 7 hnsecs
>
> DMD release:
>
> Cerealed: 2 secs, 556 ms, 714 μs, and 6 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  1 sec, 89 ms, 561 μs, and 3 hnsecs
>
>
> GDC debug:
>
> Cerealed: 4 secs, 863 ms, 501 μs, and 1 hnsec
> MsgPack:  2 secs, 32 ms, 53 μs, and 1 hnsec
>
>
> GDC release:
>
> Cerealed: 1 sec, 740 ms, 726 μs, and 4 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  1 sec, 20 ms, 287 μs, and 3 hnsecs
>
>
> LDC debug:
>
> Cerealed: 7 secs, 711 ms, 154 μs, and 4 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  3 secs, 694 ms, 566 μs, and 2 hnsecs
>
>
> LDC release:
>
> Cerealed: 1 sec, 795 ms, 380 μs, and 7 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  931 ms, 355 μs, and 5 hnsecs



Before I had time to look into it, somebody graciously optimised cerealed for me in this PR:

https://github.com/atilaneves/cerealed/pull/6

And now then benchmarks are (dub build --build=release, fastest of 10 runs for each compiler):

DMD:
Cerealed: 1 sec, 199 ms, 118 μs, and 1 hnsec
MsgPack:  1 sec, 85 ms, and 516 μs

GDC:
Cerealed: 927 ms, 677 μs, and 4 hnsecs
MsgPack:  1 sec, 32 ms, 736 μs, and 5 hnsecs

LDC:
Cerealed: 970 ms, 482 μs, and 6 hnsecs
MsgPack:  896 ms, 591 μs, and 2 hnsecs


Not too shabby!

Atila

On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 13:59:37 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> On Monday, 29 June 2015 at 10:22:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> I guess I'm going to have benchmark this now... :)
>
> What about doing a memory profiling using DMD fresh builtin profiler of
>
> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/17b0ed9c0204
>
> ?
>
> I'm guessing the GC might give misguiding results as your testStruct returns a relatively small data structure.
>
> I would rather like to see a larger (randomized) structure being tested on.
>
> You could make use of my
>
> https://github.com/nordlow/justd/blob/master/random_ex.d
>
> for random instance generation :)

I tried your code and added it to the benchmark. It didn't make much of a difference.

Atila

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 16:36:41 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> LDC:
> Cerealed: 970 ms, 482 μs, and 6 hnsecs
> MsgPack:  896 ms, 591 μs, and 2 hnsecs
>
>
> Not too shabby!
>
> Atila

cool.
what are the advantages of cereald over msgpack?
can you stream in packets with cereald too?

cool thing about msgpack is that there exist libraries for many language.
so we use it do actually store logs and then process them with other tools too.

On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 05:53:48 UTC, yawniek wrote:
> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 16:36:41 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> LDC:
>> Cerealed: 970 ms, 482 μs, and 6 hnsecs
>> MsgPack:  896 ms, 591 μs, and 2 hnsecs
>>
>>
>> Not too shabby!
>>
>> Atila
>
> cool.
> what are the advantages of cereald over msgpack?

AFAIK, features. The kind of features I need/use to write networking code and reduce the boilerplate to an absolute minimum.

> can you stream in packets with cereald too?

I don't know exactly what you mean. I've only used it to go from network packets structs to bytes and vice-versa.

>
> cool thing about msgpack is that there exist libraries for many language.
> so we use it do actually store logs and then process them with other tools too.

I wrote cerealed for networking. You _can_ use it to convert whatever else to binary, but its focus is easy networking.

Atila