Re: Reminder: Review for Zach's parsing library starts on Feb 19th

From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-01 04:23:17

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 9:26 PM Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Zach Laine wrote:
> > Thanks.  I fixed it as well, and now I get about 1.5-2X worse performance than
> > Boost.JSON.  I'm just building the "pretty" example from Boost.JSON, and
> > "json" and "callback_json" from my examples.
> > When I feed these the file at
> > https://world.openfoodfacts.org/api/v0/product/5060292302201.json , and
> > prepend "time", I get these results:
> >
> > pretty (Boost.JSON):
> > real    0m0.014s
> > user    0m0.004s
> > sys     0m0.000s
> >
> > json (Parser):
> > real    0m0.022s
> > user    0m0.020s
> > sys     0m0.000s
> >
> > callback_json (Parser, no JSON object creation):
> > real    0m0.023s
> > user    0m0.018s
> > sys     0m0.004s
> >
> > I'm not sure what the tests reported earlier were doing, but I definitely don't
> > see orders of magnitude difference.
>
> I used this file:
>
> https://github.com/boostorg/json/blob/develop/bench/data/twitter.json

Using that file, I get similar results to what I already posted (the
numbers are different, but the ratios between them are the same).

I managed to make a change that was much smaller -- no template
parameter required.  I consistenty see 1.5x slowdown for Parser vs.
Boost.JSON for files around this size, and 2x or so for much larger
files (~25MB).  I went ahead and committed the template-parameter
approach on a branch,
https://github.com/tzlaine/parser/tree/tmpl_param_for_scoped_trace .
It made no difference vs. the mid-review branch I've been working on,
or at least not for GCC+Linux.

Zach