Re: [Help-smalltalk] performance of the json parser

[Stephen Compall]

On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 01:07 +0100, Robin Redeker wrote:
> Well, those only operate on unicode characters as the json
> implementation does. But they indeed don't do any encoding stuff.
> So that might explain a bit of the overhead, and also the GC stuff might
> be explain the bad performance. Is GC known to cause multiple ms long
> breaks?

It explains a *lot* of the overhead.  In 604 (615 was "have JSON work on
Unicode"), I got 0/14/1, with only a few outliers (presumably due to GC)
and 0/1 dominating the set.  In 619 I get 5/34/14, though of course
using I18N also loads the GC so it can't account for all of that.

I should add that I would find a JSON parser/formatter that supports
I18N to be far more useful than one without, regardless of the load.
Furthermore, I would rather have UnicodeStrings than Strings, which by
my count would eliminate 17 of the 18 Iconvs that your test produces on
each iteration, though this doesn't appear to be an option.

-- 
Our last-ditch plan is to change the forums into a podcast, then send
RSS feeds into the blogosphere so our users can further debate the
legality of mashups amongst this month's 20 'sexiest' gadgets.
        --Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part