I want to know which of the following implementation is better in
terms of performance and usability. Option A is much easier and
portable across different protobuf versions. Is it worth the trouble
trying to go with Option B? In my tests, I could not find much of a
performance gain by using Option B.
Option A uses the protobuf compiler generated class to loop through
each elements of a repeated doubles.
On the other hand, Option B uses RepeatedField class to extract a
pointer to the array of doubles.
Option A:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
int size = bucket.bucketdouble(j).data_size();
double* doubleVector = new double[size];
for(int k=0; k<size; k++) {
doubleVector[k] = bucket.bucketdouble(j).data(k);
}
// Custom function that takes arrays of doubles
add_double_vector(doubleVector, size);
delete [] doubleVector;
Option B:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
using namespace google::protobuf;
DoubleData* doubledata_m = deal_pb.mutable_bucket(i)-
>mutable_bucketdouble(j);
RepeatedField< double >* doublearray_m = doubledata_m->mutable_data();
// Custom function that takes arrays of doubles
add_double_vector(doublearray_m->mutable_data(), doublearray_m-
>size());
My .proto file looks something like this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
message DoubleData {
required string name = 1 [default = "noname"];
repeated double data = 2;
}
message Bucket {
repeated DoubleData bucketDouble = 2;
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
