luciano/reitit
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/metosin/reitit.git synced 2025-12-17 08:21:11 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Tune perf doc

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Tommi Reiman 2017-11-01 18:57:09 +02:00
parent 67a40d9194
commit 4706c7101c
1 changed files with 15 additions and 7 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
doc/performance.md
View file

@ -17,14 +17,18 @@ There are many great routing libraries for Clojure(Script), but not many are opt
### Performance guides
As a library user, some things related to performance:
Some things related to performance:
* avoid wildcard-routes - it's an order of magnitude slower to match than non-wildcard routes
* it's ok to mix non-wildcard and wildcard routes in a same routing tree as long as you don't disable the [conflict resolution](basics/route_conflicts.md) => if no conflicting routes are found, a `:mixed-router` can be created, which collects all non-wildcard routes into a separate fast subrouter.
### Does routing performance matter?
Well, it depends. Some tested routing libs seem to spend more time resolving the routes than it takes to encode & decode a 1k JSON payload. For busy sites, this actually matters.
### Example
The routing sample taken from [bide](https://github.com/funcool/bide) perf suite, run with a Late 2013 MacBook Pro, with the `perf` profile:
The routing sample taken from [bide](https://github.com/funcool/bide) README, run with a Late 2013 MacBook Pro, with the `perf` profile:
```clj
(require '[reitit.core :as r])
@ -49,15 +53,19 @@ The routing sample taken from [bide](https://github.com/funcool/bide) perf suite
### Is that good?
Based on some [quick tests](https://github.com/metosin/reitit/tree/master/perf-test/clj/reitit), the first lookup is order of 100 times faster than other tested Clojure routing libraries. The second being 3-18x faster. But as like most microbenchmarks, test usually lie as they test different test things with different libs. For example, Pedestal also matches on the `:request-method` which makes it do more work. With real life routing trees, the differences are most likely more subtle, or even the order might be totally different.
Based on some [quick perf tests](https://github.com/metosin/reitit/tree/master/perf-test/clj/reitit), the first lookup is two orders of magnitude faster than other tested Clojure routing libraries. The second lookup is 3-18x faster.
But, most micro-benchmarks lie. For example, Pedestal is always matching the `:request-method` which means it does more work. With real life routing trees, the differences are most likely more subtle, or some other lib might be actually faster.
### So why test?
Real value of perf tests is to have a internal baseline and optimize against it. Also, to ensure that new features don't regress the performance.
Real value of perf tests is to get a internal baseline to optimize against. Also, to ensure that new features don't regress the performance.
It might be interesting to look out of the box and compare Clojure routing libs to routers in other languages, like the [routers in Go](https://github.com/julienschmidt/go-http-routing-benchmark).
It might be interesting to look out of the box and compare the fast Clojure routing libs to routers in other languages, like the [routers in Go](https://github.com/julienschmidt/go-http-routing-benchmark).
### Plans ahead
### Roadmap
Currently, the non-wildcard routes are already really fast to match, but wildcard routes use only a naive linear scan. Plan is to add a optimized [Trie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie)-based router. See
[httprouter](https://github.com/julienschmidt/httprouter#how-does-it-work) and [Pedestal](https://github.com/pedestal/pedestal/pull/330) for details. New routing algorithms can be plugged in easily, without changes in the public apis.
[httprouter](https://github.com/julienschmidt/httprouter#how-does-it-work) and [Pedestal](https://github.com/pedestal/pedestal/pull/330) for details.
PRs welcome.