1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.psyc.eu/libpsyc synced 2024-08-15 03:19:02 +00:00

bench: converted to org, added packet extraction script, added first results

This commit is contained in:
tg(x) 2011-05-16 13:17:57 +02:00
parent 1aa7d2b718
commit 15bca0ea2a
3 changed files with 353 additions and 0 deletions

28
bench/Makefile Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
ORG_PATH = /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode
INIT = (setq load-path (cons \"/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/org-mode\" load-path)) (require 'org-install)
wiki2org:
perl -pe '\
s/^= (.*) =\s*$$/#+TITLE: $$1\n/; \
s/^== (.*) ==\s*$$/* $$1/; \
s/^=== (.*) ===\s*$$/** $$1/; \
s/^{{{/#+BEGIN_SRC/; \
s/^}}}/#+END_SRC/ \
' benchmark.wiki >benchmark.org
tangle:
emacs -Q --batch --eval \
"(progn ${INIT} (find-file \"benchmark.org\") \
(setq org-babel-tangle-pad-newline nil org-src-preserve-indentation t) \
(org-babel-tangle) (kill-buffer))"
perl -pi -e 'print "\n" unless $$p; $$p=1' packets/user_profile.psyc
html:
emacs -Q --batch --eval \
"(progn ${INIT} (find-file \"benchmark.org\") \
(org-export-as-html-batch) (kill-buffer))"
pdf:
emacs -Q --batch --eval \
"(progn ${INIT} (find-file \"benchmark.org\") \
(org-export-as-pdf org-export-headline-levels) (kill-buffer))"

270
bench/benchmark.org Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
#+TITLE: libpsyc Performance Benchmarks
In this document we present the results of performance benchmarks
of libpsyc compared with libjson-glib and libxml2.
* Procedure
We'll use typical messages from the XMPP ("stanzas" in Jabber
lingo) and compare them with equivalent JSON encodings,
verbose and compact PSYC formats.
In some cases we will additionally compare PSYC packets to
a more efficient XML encoding based on PSYC methods, to have
a more accurate comparison of the actual PSYC and XML
syntaxes, rather than the protocol structures of PSYC and XMPP.
* The Benchmarks
** A presence packet
Since presence packets are by far the dominant messaging content
in the XMPP network, we'll start with one of them.
Here's an example from paragraph 4.4.2 of RFC 6121.
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/presence.xml
<presence from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
to='benvolio@example.net'>
<show>away</show>
</presence>
#+END_SRC
And here's the same information in a JSON rendition:
#+BEGIN_SRC js :tangle packets/presence.json
["presence",{"from":"juliet@example.com/balcony","to":"benvolio@example.net"},{"show":"away"}]
#+END_SRC
Here's the equivalent PSYC packet in verbose form
(since it is a multicast, the single recipients do not
need to be mentioned):
#+BEGIN_SRC psyc :tangle packets/presence.psyc
:_context psyc://example.com/~juliet
=_degree_availability 4
_notice_presence
|
#+END_SRC
And the same in compact form:
#+BEGIN_SRC psyc
:c psyc://example.com/~juliet
=da 4
np
|
#+END_SRC
** An average chat message
XML:
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/chat_msg.xml
<message
from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
id='ktx72v49'
to='romeo@example.net'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?</body>
</message>
#+END_SRC
PSYC:
#+BEGIN_SRC psyc :tangle packets/chat_msg.psyc
:_source psyc://example.com/~juliet
:_target psyc://example.net/~romeo
_message_private
Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?
|
#+END_SRC
** A new status updated activity
Example taken from http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/osw-activities.html
You could call this XML namespace hell:
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/activity.xml
<iq type='set'
from='hamlet@denmark.lit/snsclient'
to='hamlet@denmark.lit'
id='osw1'>
<pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
<publish node='urn:xmpp:microblog:0'>
<item>
<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:activity="http://activitystrea.ms/spec/1.0/"
xmlns:osw="http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/">
<title>to be or not to be ?</title>
<activity:verb>http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post</activity:verb>
<activity:object>
<activity:object-type>http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/object/status</activity:object-type>
<content type="text/plain">to be or not to be ?</content>
</activity:object>
<osw:acl-rule>
<osw:acl-action permission="http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/acl/permission/grant">
http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/acl/action/view
</osw:acl-action>
<osw:acl-subject type="http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/acl/subject/everyone"/>
</osw:acl-rule>
</entry>
</item>
</publish>
</pubsub>
</iq>
#+END_SRC
http://activitystrea.ms/head/json-activity.html proposes a JSON encoding
of this. We'll have to add a routing header to it.
#+BEGIN_SRC js :tangle packets/activity.json
["activity",{"from":"hamlet@denmark.lit/snsclient"},{"verb":"post",
"title":"to be or not to be ?","object":{"type":"status",
"content":"to be or not to be ?","contentType":"text/plain"}}]
#+END_SRC
http://about.psyc.eu/Activity suggests a PSYC mapping for activity
streams. Should a "status post" be considered equivalent to a presence
description announcement or just a message in the "microblogging" channel?
We'll use the latter here:
#+BEGIN_SRC psyc :tangle packets/activity.psyc
:_context psyc://denmark.lit/~hamlet#_follow
:_subject to be or not to be ?
:_type_content text/plain
_message
to be or not to be ?
|
#+END_SRC
** A message with JSON-unfriendly characters
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/json-unfriendly.xml
<message
from='romeo@example.net/orchard'
id='sl3nx51f'
to='juliet@example.com/balcony'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>"Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.", he said.
And
the
rest
is
history.</body>
</message>
#+END_SRC
** A message with XML-unfriendly characters
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/xml-unfriendly.xml
<message
from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
id='z94nb37h'
to='romeo@example.net'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<body>Wherefore art thou, Romeo?</body>
<body xml:lang='cs'>
Pro&#x010D;e&#x017D; jsi ty, Romeo?
</body>
</message>
#+END_SRC
** A message with PSYC-unfriendly strings
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/psyc-unfriendly.xml
<message
from='juliet@example.com/balcony'
id='c8xg3nf8'
to='romeo@example.net'
type='chat'
xml:lang='en'>
<subject>I implore you with a pointless
newline in a header variable</subject>
<body>Wherefore art thou, Romeo?
|
And for practicing purposes we added a PSYC packet delimiter.</body>
</message>
#+END_SRC
** A packet containing a JPEG photograph
... TBD ...
** A random data structure
In this test we'll not consider XMPP at all and simply compare the
efficiency of the three syntaxes at serializing a typical user data base
storage information. We'll again start with XML:
#+BEGIN_SRC xml :tangle packets/user_profile.xml
<UserProfile>
<Name>Silvio Berlusconi</Name>
<JobTitle>Premier</JobTitle>
<Country>I</Country>
<Address>
<Street>Via del Colosseo, 1</Street>
<PostalCode>00100</PostalCode>
<City>Roma</City>
</Address>
<Page>http://example.org</Page>
</UserProfile>
#+END_SRC
In JSON this would look like this:
#+BEGIN_SRC js :tangle packets/user_profile.json
["UserProfile",{"Name":"Silvio Berlusconi","JobTitle":"Premier","Country":"I","Address":
{"Street":"Via del Colosseo, 1","PostalCode":"00100","City":"Roma"},"Page":"http://example.org"}]
#+END_SRC
Here's a way to model this in PSYC:
#+BEGIN_SRC psyc :tangle packets/user_profile.psyc
:_name Silvio Berlusconi
:_title_job Premier
:_country I
:_address_street Via del Colosseo, 1
:_address_code_postal 00100
:_address_city Roma
:_page http://example.org
_profile_user
|
#+END_SRC
* Conclusions
... TBD ...
* Criticism
Are we comparing apples and oranges? Yes and no, depends on what you
need. XML is a syntax best suited for complex structured data in
well-defined formats - especially good for text mark-up. JSON is a syntax
intended to hold arbitrarily structured data suitable for immediate
inclusion in javascript source codes. The PSYC syntax is an evolved
derivate of RFC 822, the syntax used by HTTP and E-Mail, and is therefore
limited in the kind and depth of data structures that can be represented
with it, but in exchange it is highly performant at doing just that.
So it is up to you to find out which of the three formats fulfils your
requirements the best. We use PSYC for the majority of messaging where
JSON and XMPP aren't efficient and opaque enough, but we employ XML and
JSON as payloads within PSYC for data that doesn't fit the PSYC model.
For some reason all three formats are being used for messaging, although
only PSYC was actually designed for that purpose.
* Caveats
In every case we'll compare performance of parsing and re-rendering
these messages, but consider also that the applicative processing
of an XML DOM tree is more complicated than just accessing
certain elements in a JSON data structure or PSYC variable
mapping.
For a speed check in real world conditions which also consider the
complexity of processing incoming messages we should compare
the performance of a chat client using the two protocols,
for instance by using libpurple with XMPP and PSYC accounts.
To this purpose we first need to integrate libpsyc into libpurple.
* Futures
After a month of development libpsyc is already performing pretty
well, but we presume various optimizations, like rewriting parts
in assembler, are possible.

55
bench/results.org Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
#+TITLE: Benchmark results
#+OPTIONS: ^:{}
* libpsyc
: ./testPsyc -snqc 1000000 -f $file
- presence: 597 ms
- chat_msg: 714 ms
- user_profile: 1806 ms
- activity: 903 ms
* libjson
: ./testJson -snqc 1000000 -f $file
- presence: 3247 ms
- user_profile: 5847 ms
- activity: 5768 ms
* rapidxml
: ./rapidxml 1000000 $file
- presence: 1719 ms
- chat_msg: 1893 ms
- user_profile: 2477 ms
- activity: 4419 ms
* rapidxml fast mode
: fast_mode=1 ./rapidxml 1000000 $file
- presence: 1643 ms
- chat_msg: 1799 ms
- user_profile: 2218 ms
- activity: 4001 ms
* libxml
: ./libxml 1000000 $file
- presence: 7557 ms
- chat_msg: 9777 ms
- user_profile: 12377 ms
- activity: 28858 ms
* libxml sax
: ./libxml-sax 1000000 $file
- presence: 4997 ms
- chat_msg: 5997 ms
- user_profile: 7350 ms
- activity: 13357 ms