[benchmark] Request for call-path / fairness review (GLD.SerializerBenchmark)
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 26.5k
- Forks
- 3.7k
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Hello,
I'm Leonid Ganeline. We maintain an open multi-language serializer benchmark:
https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark
Your library is included in the suite (language: python, harness name: `flatbuffers`).
Implementation we use:
https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark/blob/master/python/src/benchmark/serializers/schema_flatbuffers.py
We would value a short review of whether our measurement is fair and idiomatic:
1. Does our call pattern match how you recommend using the library in performance-sensitive code?
2. Should we change options, encoder/decoder reuse, types, or buffer handling?
3. Is there a better API (or a second entry point worth a separate row in the suite)?
Concrete notes or a small PR against that wrapper would help a lot. We are happy to credit you in the docs.
The repo also includes a short Serialization course (101–401). If something important about your design is easy to misstate, a pointer is welcome—we can update the docs ourselves.
Thank you for maintaining this library.
Best regards,
Leonid Ganeline
Contributor guide
Research direction
Start by reading the benchmark wrapper in python/src/benchmark/serializers/schema_flatbuffers.py and compare its call pattern with recommended performance-sensitive use of FlatBuffers. Review options, encoder/decoder reuse, types, and buffer handling, then provide concrete notes or a small PR against the wrapper; a useful result may also identify documentation pointers for the course.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- performance
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100