tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24611184.post276665675235266004..comments2008-11-20T09:09:36.203-08:00Eishay Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09443096006184006852noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24611184.post-74914728733031492352008-11-20T09:09:00.000-08:002008-11-20T09:09:00.000-08:00@aantono yes, it definitely is. See the sequel post <A HREF="http://eishay.blogspot.com/2008/11/protobuf-with-option-optimize-for-speed.html" REL="nofollow">Protobuf with option optimize for SPEED</A>Eishay Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09443096006184006852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24611184.post-81128314331108793362008-11-20T07:12:00.000-08:002008-11-20T07:12:00.000-08:00The difference would be, indeed, huge. I would expect for protobuf with speed optimization to perform better than thrift.aantonohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11384500284558630155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24611184.post-615403135806430362008-11-18T08:09:00.000-08:002008-11-18T08:09:00.000-08:00Ok, will do.Eishay Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09443096006184006852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24611184.post-43468561609661392562008-11-18T01:17:00.000-08:002008-11-18T01:17:00.000-08:00The protobuf you're using isn't optimised for speed. When you add "option optimize_for = SPEED" I expect you'll see a big difference.Jon Skeethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09730219126872960482noreply@blogger.com