Many people are exclaiming that the title is baity, but I disagree. It seems like a perfectly fine title in the context of this blog, which is about a specific product. It's unlikely they wrote the blog with a HN submission in mind. They're not a news publication, either.
Replacing Protobuf with Rust
51–60 of 135 posts
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#52I find the title a bit misleading. I think it should be titled It’s Faster to Copy Memory Directly than Send a Protobuf. Which then seems rather obvious that removing a serialization and deserialization step reduces runtime.
TIL serializing a protobuf is only 5 times slower than copying memory, which is way faster than I thought it’d be. Impressive given all the other nice things protobuf offers to development teams.
that actually crazy fast
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#53Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?
I dunno, are you sure you can manually write correct de/serializaiton for JSON and XML so strings, floats and integer formats correctly get parsed between JavaScript, Java, Python, Go, Rust, C++ and any other languages? Do you want to maintain that and debug that? Do you want to do all of that without help of a compiler enforcing the schema and failing compiles/CI when someone accidentally changes the schema? Because…
i mean you can always go mono or duo language and then it is really not that of an issue
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#54I find the title a bit misleading. I think it should be titled It’s Faster to Copy Memory Directly than Send a Protobuf. Which then seems rather obvious that removing a serialization and deserialization step reduces runtime.
[deleted]
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
That never happens. Instead, it always attracts the opposite group, the Rust complainers, where they go and complain about how "the everything-in-rust-is-better crowd created yet another fake headline to pretend that Rust is the panacea". Which results in a lot of engagement. Old ragebait trick.
At the very least it gets more upvotes.
Well it is keyword for RSS feeds.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#56I find the title a bit misleading. I think it should be titled It’s Faster to Copy Memory Directly than Send a Protobuf. Which then seems rather obvious that removing a serialization and deserialization step reduces runtime.
Protobuf does something important that copying memory cannot do: a protocol that can be changed separately on either end and things can still work. You have to build for "my client doesn't send some new data" (make a good default), or "I got extra data I don't understand" (ignore it). However the ability to upgrade part of the system is critical when the system is large and complex since you can't fix everything to understand your new feature without making the new feature take ages to roll out.
Protobuf also handles a bunch of languages for you. The other team wants to write in a "stupid language" - you don't have to have a political fight to prove your preferred is best for everything. You just let that team do what they want and they can learn the hard way it was a bad language. Either it isn't really that bad and so the fight was pointless, or it was but management can find other metrics to prove it and it becomes their problem to decide if it is bad enough to be worth fixing.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#57What I find particularly ironic is that the title make it feel like Rust gives a 5x performance improvement when it actually slows thing down.
The problem they have software written in Rust, and they need to use the libpg_query library, that is written in C. Because they can't use the C library directly, they had to use a Rust-to-C binding library, that uses Protobuf for portability reasons. Problem is that it is slow.
So what they did is that they wrote their own non-portable but much more optimized Rust-to-C bindings, with the help of a LLM.
But had they written their software in C, they wouldn't have needed to do any conversion at all. It means they could have titled the article "How we lowered the performance penalty of using Rust".
I don't know much about Rust or libpg_query, but they probably could have gone even faster by getting rid of the conversion entirely. It would most likely have involved major adaptations and some unsafe Rust though. Writing a converter has many advantages: portability, convenience, security, etc... but it has a cost, and ultimately, I think it is a big reason why computers are so fast and apps are so slow. Our machines keep copying, converting, serializing and deserializing things.
Note: I have nothing against what they did, quite the opposite, I always appreciate those who care about performance, and what they did is reasonable and effective, good job!
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#58What I find particularly ironic is that the title make it feel like Rust gives a 5x performance improvement when it actually slows thing down. The problem they have software written in Rust, and they need to use the libpg_query library, that is written in C. Because they can't use the C library directly, they had to use a Rust-to-C binding library, that uses Protobuf for portability reasons. Problem is that it is slo…
> they had to use a Rust-to-C binding library, that uses Protobuf for portability reasons.
That sounds like a performance nightmare, putting Protobuf of all things between the language and Postgres, I'm surprised such a library ever got popular.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#59Don't read clickbaity headlines and scan hacker news five times faster.
Become a 5X Hacker News reader with this One Weird Trick.
Re: Replacing Protobuf with Rust
#60What I find particularly ironic is that the title make it feel like Rust gives a 5x performance improvement when it actually slows thing down. The problem they have software written in Rust, and they need to use the libpg_query library, that is written in C. Because they can't use the C library directly, they had to use a Rust-to-C binding library, that uses Protobuf for portability reasons. Problem is that it is slo…
>> But had they written their software in C, they wouldn't have needed to do any conversion at all. It means they could have titled the article "How we lowered the performance penalty of using Rust".
That's not really fair. The library was doing serialization/deserialization which was poor design choice from a performance perspective. They just made a more sane API that doesn't do all that extra work. It might best be titles "replacing protobuf with a normal API to go 5 times faster."
BTW what makes you think writing their end in C would yield even higher performance?