Hacker News Reader

That really depends on the nature of your data. The space saving in protobufs really comes from its variable-length zig-zag encoding of numeric fields (including lengths for arrays and strings).

Tbh, i'm surprised msgpack didn't produce smaller outputs for you, because it really should (at the cost of being slower)

View on HN

No way that msgpack can produce more compact messages than protobuf, it is schemaless and stores the element names inside the message. Here is a simple benchmark I have of an array of objects where each {id: int,x: int,y: int,rot: float}. An array of 20 elements with random values of such object would take in JSON 804 bytes, in mpack 538 bytes and in protobuf3 only 304 bytes, of course this changes if you put other values but as you see for this case protobuf is almost 60% of msgpack message size and it's around the same ration even if you make the array length 200 instead of 20.

Yep, you're right. I forgot about the keys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com