Hi Val,
I post the codes in GitHub https://github.com/jackeylu/marshaller-cmp, you can run and compare it. I am so glad that you can help me to choose the right serializes. I am not sure my cases is fair or not. And from my tests, I found that, 1. in most of the case of primitive types or jdk.* types, protostuff not work better than ignite binary marshaller, but I think it does'n matter in real world. 2. in the case of user defined objects, protostuff can save average 40% capacity than ignite binary marshaller. Here the custom defined objects are MEDIA_CONTENT_1 and MEDIA_CONTENT_2 which are from https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/blob/master/tpc/data/media.1.cks and https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/blob/master/tpc/data/media.2.cks ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "valentin.kulichenko";<[email protected]>; Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2016 06:01 AM To: "user"<[email protected]>; Subject: Re: How about adding kryo or protostuff as an optional marshaller? Hi Lin, Do you have a GitHub project that I can run and compare these two marshallers? From these snippets it's not very clear what is actually serialized. Generally, Ignite does provide minimal overhead in the binary format, mainly to allow field lookups without deserialization, which is crucial for SQL queries, for example. However, even with this overhead, there is no much difference in numbers. I believe that in most real use cases this difference will be negligible. However, you can always try to introduce custom serialization protocol. Simply implement Marshaller interface and provide the implementation in IgniteConfiguration. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/How-about-adding-kryo-or-protostuff-as-an-optional-marshaller-tp6309p6361.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
