On Jun 30, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Guba, Nicolai wrote:
> One thing that we have learned over the years is that it is
> impossible to predict performance empirically. One needs to measure
> the application and then compare measurements to determine whether
> any improvements actually yielded the expected results. You may be
> surprised what you find at times :) Like Paul mentioned earlier.
> Data is king!
>
> It must be said however, that we measured the effect of the request
> being processed by jaxb-json (which uses Jackson) versus 'plain'
> jersey where we used the java implementation of JSON and hand-
> crafted a protocol. To be fair, there may be plenty of reasons why
> this is slower, not just Jackson on it's own.
Yes, the following is the layering:
JAXB unmarshaller/marshaller
|
StAX reader/writer
|
Jackson JSON parser/serializer
It does not use the Jackson Object binding. It would not surprise me
to know, and i definitely would be surprised to learn if it was not
the case, that the Jackson Object binding is faster, given the
potential for optimizations and how Tatu writes code :-)
Paul.
> I would arguge that it is a price worth paying though.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot release any source code :( but such test
> should not be too difficult to set up on your own.
>
> Thank you for the background info in FI. Are there any
> recommendations for an efficient data format other than JSON or can
> we say that right now JSON would be our best option?
>
> Happy Hacking!
> --
> =NPG=
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:tsaloranta_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:52 AM
> To: users_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> Subject: Re: [Jersey] Custom inject provider
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Guba, Nicolai<nguba_at_bioware.com>
> wrote:
>> You don't have to use JAXB at all. You can just obtain the request
>> as String and then unroll your own object.
>
> Or, for better efficiency, InputStream.
>
>> We have actually measured the impact of this and the results have
>> shown about a 16% overhead of Jackson unmarshalling vs the good ol
>> JSONObject (go figure! I thought Jackson was meant to be quicker).
>
> That would be most unexpected result. :-)
>
> Do you happen to have a simple test case at hand to exhibit this
> behavior? Or maybe a code snippet?
>
> And yes, Jackson is meant to be faster. Usually by factor of 4x or 5x,
> from feedback I have gotten. I haven't seen any case where default
> JSONObject would come anywhere near it, speedwise, so I would be
> interested in seeing what gives results you are seeing.,
>
>> If raw protocol speed is of essence, then looking at fast infoset
>> may be a better alternative. As far as we are concerned, we have
>> benchmarked our request handling in the region of 16-17k requests
>> per second per server---which is most adequate.
>
> From what I have seen, FI is actually not necessarily faster than
> JSON.
> It can be bit faster than plain old textual XML overall (slower to
> write == serialize, faster to read), but it's really important to
> measure things to know for specific use cases. FI has bit higher
> per-invocation overhead it seems, so benefits are bigger for larger
> documents.
>
> -+ Tatu +-
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>