簡要記述一下在c++環境下protobuf、thrift與avro序列化性能結果。
測試方法：分別用三種協議定義一個包含同樣字段的數據結構，然後重複調用多次，比較三者之間花費的時間。具體定義的數據結構爲：
Person {
int id;
string name;
string email;
}測試環境：一臺兩年前購置的Mac電腦（具體配置有待補充）。
測試結果：迭代次數分別爲：1、10000、100000（thrift使用了兩種編碼方式：binary和compact）
[avro encode] times: 1, milli: 0.046078
[avro decode] times: 1, milli: 0.030119
[avro encode] times: 10000, milli: 21.9206
[avro decode] times: 10000, milli: 15.3672
[protobuf encode] times: 1, milli: 0.023208
[protobuf decode] times: 1, milli: 0.007489
[protobuf encode] times: 10000, milli: 12.4098
[protobuf decode] times: 10000, milli: 8.18684
[thrift binary encode] times: 1, milli: 0.042721
[thrift binary decode] times: 1, milli: 0.012054
[thrift binary encode] times: 10000, milli: 22.8659
[thrift binary decode] times: 10000, milli: 25.6858
[thrift compact encode] times: 1, milli: 0.055757
[thrift compact decode] times: 1, milli: 0.02131
[thrift compact encode] times: 10000, milli: 29.9698
[thrift compact decode] times: 10000, milli: 38.1937
[avro encode] times: 1, milli: 0.038088
[avro decode] times: 1, milli: 0.021185
[avro encode] times: 100000, milli: 219.917
[avro decode] times: 100000, milli: 167.694
[protobuf encode] times: 1, milli: 0.04218
[protobuf decode] times: 1, milli: 0.01303
[protobuf encode] times: 100000, milli: 98.2691
[protobuf decode] times: 100000, milli: 74.7578
[thrift binary encode] times: 1, milli: 0.046932
[thrift binary decode] times: 1, milli: 0.015221
[thrift binary encode] times: 100000, milli: 232.316
[thrift binary decode] times: 100000, milli: 266.397
[thrift compact encode] times: 1, milli: 0.034175
[thrift compact decode] times: 1, milli: 0.013485
[thrift compact encode] times: 100000, milli: 307.872
[thrift compact decode] times: 100000, milli: 381.324從以上結果可以看出：protobuf表現優異，avro次之，thrift表現總體較差（binary比compact好些）。
結束語：以上結果僅供參考，實際選用要結合項目的具體情況。如需要性能絕對優先，那就應該選擇protobuf；否則需要支持多種開發語言則應該選擇thrift；avro的動態特性似乎也頗具吸引力。