[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: kotlin, harness name: `flatbuffers`).
Implementation we use:
https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark/blob/master/kotlin/src/main/kotlin/benchmark/serializers/FlatBuffersSer.kt
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 with the linked Kotlin wrapper, kotlin/src/main/kotlin/benchmark/serializers/FlatBuffersSer.kt, and compare its call pattern, options, reuse, types, and buffer handling with the library's documented performance guidance. Done means providing concrete fairness feedback or a small wrapper PR, with any important design details corrected in the benchmark's course documentation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, kotlin
- Domain
- performance, testing-qa
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100