4 ms·

Django is already vastly faster than human perception. An entire roundtrip to my Django app takes 70 - 110ms. The entire roundtrip is already faster than human

Django is already vastly faster than human perception. An entire roundtrip to my Django app takes 70 - 110ms. The entire roundtrip is already faster than human perception even in the worst case, and of that Django itself probably contributes something like 2 or 3ms.

ghostwriter 6y ago
At this point it's mostly about (cost) efficiency, like how many EC2 instances you will need to cover your workload with a service implemented in a particular framework. It also assumes that developers can pick any of them with the same amount of effort, which is probably a proper assumption for a benchmark that measures performance.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  How much cost efficiency is there? I’ve worked at multiple of the top 100 websites in the U.S., and none of them had more than a dozen web servers. For any website, 90% of traffic is logged out and probably doesn’t even hit the web servers. And web servers are generally the least expensive component of hosting costs.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    These costs are more meaningfull for those who bootstrap their businesses and projects at their own expense. I have a personal anectdote where switching from a scripting web framework to a compiled one reduced the runtime size, and the deployable environment went from 800mb to 10mb, which allowed me to fit all my deployments into a free-tier monthly quota of AWS ECR. Given I already knew both frameworks from fulltime jobs, it's a great net benefit. It also means that whoever wants to use self-hosted open-source alternatives of user-tracking services (notes, calendars, emails, etc), they can do it cheaper or even for free.
ksec 6y ago
>and of that Django itself probably contributes something like 2 or 3ms. Unless it is super tuned, running on a specialise VM, I seriously have doubt about that. It is already pretty damn good if PHP/Python Django and Ruby Rails could do 10ms request excluding the Database on a moderately large App. Generally they are 20ms+. And recently shopify even have their performance matrix allowing for 300ms per request.
- fmajid 6y ago
  At my company we used to have an OpenRTB bidder backed by Redis that would do 9ms 99th percentile for 4B requests/day spread over 8 machines.
w_t_payne 6y ago
110 ms is not faster than human perception. It's over a tenth of a second, and is very noticeable. The flicker fusion threshold for human vision lies in the 60Hz-90Hz range, corresponding to between 11 and 17ms. If I recall correctly, EEG experiments show differences up to around 100-120Hz, so on the order of 8ms. In any case, network latency itself adds on the order of 10ms per 1,000km of distance; 35ms or so for a London to New York round-trip, so the point about framework speed being a bit of a moot point other than in exceptionally high traffic scenarios still stands.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > 110 ms is not faster than human perception. OK yes, it a literal sense you can see things that happen in less than 100ms. What I mean is that you can't tell whether the nominal amount of flicker on page load is from the time it takes to paint the DOM or from the network request. Unless you were asking a professional front end developer, I don't think most people would even have any intuition about what was happening.

ghostwriter 6y ago

At this point it's mostly about (cost) efficiency, like how many EC2 instances you will need to cover your workload with a service implemented in a particular framework. It also assumes that developers can pick any of them with the same amount of effort, which is probably a proper assumption for a benchmark that measures performance.

Alex3917 6y ago
How much cost efficiency is there? I’ve worked at multiple of the top 100 websites in the U.S., and none of them had more than a dozen web servers. For any website, 90% of traffic is logged out and probably doesn’t even hit the web servers. And web servers are generally the least expensive component of hosting costs.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  These costs are more meaningfull for those who bootstrap their businesses and projects at their own expense. I have a personal anectdote where switching from a scripting web framework to a compiled one reduced the runtime size, and the deployable environment went from 800mb to 10mb, which allowed me to fit all my deployments into a free-tier monthly quota of AWS ECR. Given I already knew both frameworks from fulltime jobs, it's a great net benefit. It also means that whoever wants to use self-hosted open-source alternatives of user-tracking services (notes, calendars, emails, etc), they can do it cheaper or even for free.

ksec 6y ago

>and of that Django itself probably contributes something like 2 or 3ms. Unless it is super tuned, running on a specialise VM, I seriously have doubt about that. It is already pretty damn good if PHP/Python Django and Ruby Rails could do 10ms request excluding the Database on a moderately large App. Generally they are 20ms+. And recently shopify even have their performance matrix allowing for 300ms per request.

fmajid 6y ago
At my company we used to have an OpenRTB bidder backed by Redis that would do 9ms 99th percentile for 4B requests/day spread over 8 machines.

w_t_payne 6y ago

110 ms is not faster than human perception. It's over a tenth of a second, and is very noticeable. The flicker fusion threshold for human vision lies in the 60Hz-90Hz range, corresponding to between 11 and 17ms. If I recall correctly, EEG experiments show differences up to around 100-120Hz, so on the order of 8ms. In any case, network latency itself adds on the order of 10ms per 1,000km of distance; 35ms or so for a London to New York round-trip, so the point about framework speed being a bit of a moot point other than in exceptionally high traffic scenarios still stands.

Alex3917 6y ago
> 110 ms is not faster than human perception. OK yes, it a literal sense you can see things that happen in less than 100ms. What I mean is that you can't tell whether the nominal amount of flicker on page load is from the time it takes to paint the DOM or from the network request. Unless you were asking a professional front end developer, I don't think most people would even have any intuition about what was happening.