4 ms·

I wonder how this compares with Microstream One which looked to have quite slick serialisation capabilities

• chaokunyang 3y ago
  I benchmarked with Microstream using jmh and jvm-serializers data. Hare are the results: 1) fury is 43x faster for the speed. 2) Fury is 5x smaller for serialized binary size Here is the code for reproduction: https://github.com/chaokunyang/fury-benchmarks#fury-vs-microstream https://github.com/chaokunyang/fury-benchmarks#fury-vs-micro...
  • vlovich123 3y ago
    How does Fury compare to static schema serialization frameworks that aren’t Java focused? For example, flat buffers, alkahest, protobuf etc.
    • chaokunyang 3y ago
      Compared with protobuf, fury is 3.2x faster. When comparing with avro, fury is 5.3x faster. Compared with flatbuffers, fury is 4.8x faster. See https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki for detailed benchmark data
      • vlovich123 3y ago
        * on the JVM Right? Flatbuffers supposedly being slower than protobufs is circumspect since most benchmarks I’ve seen for it in C++/Rust show it outperforming, especially since it too does zero-copy deser.
        • chaokunyang 3y ago
          Yes, on the jvm. Haven't tested it for native languages, C++/Rust should be faster since it doesn't compress data and it's zero-copy
  • jarym 3y ago
    Oh nice!! I will certainly try this out. Much of my work these days is Java (Kotlin), C# and Python so a good serialization framework is always helpful.