3 ms·
I’m aware that Ruby/Rails isn’t that quick, but it seems mind boggling that an 800ms server response time is considered tolerated, and 200ms is satisfying. I’ve
by bdibs 6y ago
I’m aware that Ruby/Rails isn’t that quick, but it seems mind boggling that an 800ms server response time is considered tolerated, and 200ms is satisfying. I’ve never used Ruby in production so maybe my reference point is off and this is more impressive than I’m giving it credit for.
- Scarbutt 6y agoFor page reloads, anything below 300ms is fine.
- dx034 6y agoBut you should also account for up to 100-200ms network latency (especially with mobile networks) plus some rendering time. A 200ms server response time can already lead to a perceived 500ms loading time.
- ksec 6y ago>https://stackexchange.com/performance https://stackexchange.com/performance Page Rendered in 12.2ms - 18.3ms Giving plenty of room for Network Latency.
- joelbluminator 6y agoI'm not sure this has anything to do with Ruby, they're talking about user experience: what's perceptible to humans and what causes frustrations. Also - in most apps db and frontend take way more time than the Rails stack.