From 812ecbb99390dad7186c867c9497a25e2becaf5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tommi Reiman Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:36:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] fix typo in doc --- doc/performance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/performance.md b/doc/performance.md index 69fd61cf..4b3ff1c2 100644 --- a/doc/performance.md +++ b/doc/performance.md @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ 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 might 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 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. ### So why test?