How hard is it to draw a bar graph? I'd imagine it is easier than creating an ASCII table and then turning that into an image, but I've never experimented with the latter.
Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#12Feel like there was timed upvotes to get this on the front page. I watched this pretty much in the span of 2 minutes go to 8 upvotes.
[deleted]
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#13The usage of percentages in the article is wrong. 6 is not 150% faster than 4.
Author here. Thanks for pointing this out. I wrote this article long back and forgot about it. I have made the changes .
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#14When I wrote the same kind of article in Nov 2011 [1], I came to similar conculsions; ujson was blowing everyone away. However, after swapping a fairly large and json-intensive production spider over to ujson, we noticed a large increase in memory use. When I investigated, I discovered that simplejson reused allocated string objects, so when parsing/loading you basically got string compression for repeated string key…
Hey Jason. Thats pretty interesting. I have also noticed similar things but for my case, we needed faster loading/unloading for some cases, hence ujson.
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#15I disagree with the conclusion. How about this: you should use the tool that most of your coworkers already know and which has large community support and adequate performance. In other words, stop foling around and use json library. If (IF!!!) you find performance inadequate, try the other libraries. And most of all, if optimization is your goal: measure, measure and measure!
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#16How hard is it to draw a bar graph? I'd imagine it is easier than creating an ASCII table and then turning that into an image, but I've never experimented with the latter.
Not helpful.
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#17> keep in mind that ultrajson only works with well defined collections and will not work for un-serializable collections. But if you are dealing with texts, this should not be a problem. Well-defined collections? As in, serializable? Well sure, that's requisite for the native json package as well as simplejson (as far as I can recall -- haven't used simplejson in some time.) But does "texts" refer to strings? As in,…
ujson doesn't error out if you have a collection that isn't serializable so you can lose individual keys. It also has issues with ints and floats that are too big (just fails out)
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#18Also weird crashes with ultra json, lack of nice formatting in outputs, and high memory usage in some situations
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#19How hard is it to draw a bar graph? I'd imagine it is easier than creating an ASCII table and then turning that into an image, but I've never experimented with the latter.
What I found interesting is that the original version had plain HTML tables, not ascii in images: http://blog.dataweave.in/post/87589606893/json-vs-simplejson...
Re: Json vs. simplejson vs. ujson
#20When I wrote the same kind of article in Nov 2011 [1], I came to similar conculsions; ujson was blowing everyone away. However, after swapping a fairly large and json-intensive production spider over to ujson, we noticed a large increase in memory use. When I investigated, I discovered that simplejson reused allocated string objects, so when parsing/loading you basically got string compression for repeated string key…
Seems like there should be a standard Python mechanism for constructing "atoms" or "symbols" that automatically get commoned up.