Noggit features like optional quotation of strings, comments, trailing comma etc are nice but not crucial. I'd like us to move to standard JSON if it is not significantly slower. On the SolrJ client side I'd hope we could shade Jackson to avoid version conflicts in user code.
Jan > 5. aug. 2024 kl. 20:09 skrev David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org>: > > I just finished some benchmarking work using Solr's benchmark module. > It should be pretty easy to tweak an existing benchmark to try both. > Purely from a maintainability standpoint, we could make a hard break > decision in Solr 10. > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 1:00 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My hunch is that Jackson would be more performant than Noggit, but I >> don't have any hard numbers to back that up so it's just an educated >> guess. I swear there was some other issue that gave Noggit vs. >> Jackson numbers but I can't find it now. SOLR-16691 (where Noble >> switched at least some things over to using Jackson) mentions perf >> improvements in the issue description but doesn't quantify those. >> Maybe someone else with context can chime in with data? >> >> Personally, I'd rather see us use Jackson across the board. I'm sure >> we can write and maintain great serialization code if we want to spend >> that effort, but do we? Ultimately we're here for Search - it's hard >> to imagine us wanting to spend anywhere near the amount of time on >> serde code that a project like Jackson does as their raison d'etre. >> >> The Noggit lenient parsing *is* really nice for making requests by >> hand, but that's a minority use case. If there's evidence that >> Jackson is faster, is it worth slowing down 99% of JSON requests just >> so that we can leniently parse the 0.1% of malformed reqs that need >> it? Is it worth the cost of maintaining our own JSON parsing code in >> perpetuity? >> >> Best, >> >> Jason >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:54 AM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> We have a couple JSON Parsing libraries -- "Noggit" (internal to Solr) >>> and "Jackson". Noggit is more lenient in parsing. I suppose Solr >>> should use Noggit for parsing JSON coming into it, but AFAIK Solr only >>> returns/emits valid JSON; yes? For parsing JSON that we assume is >>> compliant (e.g. from Solr), should we prefer Jackson or Noggit? Are >>> there performance advantages? >>> >>> ~ David Smiley >>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
