7 ms·
> Vue 3 has demonstrated significant performance improvements over Vue 2 in terms of bundle size (up to 41% lighter with tree-shaking), initial render (up to 55
by fyrmio 6y ago
> Vue 3 has demonstrated significant performance improvements over Vue 2 in terms of bundle size (up to 41% lighter with tree-shaking), initial render (up to 55% faster), updates (up to 133% faster), and memory usage (up to 120% less).
What does 120% less memory usage mean, really?
- dboreham 6y agoMeans writer isn't mathematically literate?
- hugi 6y ago120% less mathematically literate than the last writer.
- enraged_camel 6y agoWhat's with the harsh attitude? It may have been a simple typo.
- addicted 6y agoIt means the writer isnt great at English. There are other languages which would use similar constructs where it wouldn’t be wrong.
- azangru 6y agoDo other languages math differently?
- ru552 6y agoIt doesn't need memory anymore. Writes raw to spinning disk. 2% faster -50% of the time
- ric2b 6y agoIt also goes ahead and downloads some extra RAM for you.
- tyingq 6y agoIt's definitely not how to show that, but if you follow their link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJFx-kQ4KjJmnpDXIEaig-cVAAJtpIGLZNbv3Lr4CR0/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJFx-kQ4KjJmnpDXIEai...), you'll see the numbers. The math is like, if it did use 100mb, and now it uses 25mb, that's 300% less, because 25mb is the "100%", and you reduced by that amount 3 times. Odd.
- huseyinkeles 6y agoIs this the lingo that statisticians/mathematicians use? I’d just say 75% drop for 100mb to 25mb.
- tyingq 6y agoNo, I think it's just weird :)
- pletnes 6y agoNo, it’s plain wrong. You could say «vue 2 uses 120% more memory than vue3», but vice versa is thus a different percentage (yes, 75%).
- stjohnswarts 6y agoyou would say "use 1/4th as much memory" if you were a normal person.
- spurgu 6y agoYeah. 25 to 100 would be a 300% increase. 100 to 25 would be a 75% reduction.
- gonzus 6y agoThis kind of arithmetic is always very unclear and causes all kinds of confusion / miscommunication. This is why I always prefer to be explicit about the absolute numbers (maybe in addition to the relative percentages): "it used 100 mb and now it uses 25 mb (which is a 300% reduction when looking at the final result / which is a 75% reduction based on the initial result)".
- x87678r 6y agoI'm seeing this more often, esp like 3x cheaper it hurts my head. For 120% less I'm thinking 100/220= it uses 45% of the memory it used to.
- EForEndeavour 6y agoThe only way this makes sense to me is if memory usage was reduced by a factor of 1.2, but that sounds so much more modest than "120% less" that I'm doubting myself. On a related note, I tend to avoid expressing changes as percentages entirely, in large part because increasing by X% and then decreasing by that same X% doesn't get you back to where you started.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoI can only suppose it means 100% less memory consumption by Vue, and then Vue somehow frees 20% of memory from other running processes, which would lead to some pretty interesting results.
- pier25 6y agoIn the latest JS benchmarks[1], Vue 3 RC4 is not doing so great in the startup metrics or memory usage. Perf is on par with Preact. RC4 is not the final release though, we'll see how it goes with 3.0.0 [1] https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.html https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.ht...
- sedatk 6y agoI guess it means 20% memory usage relative to the previous version?
- wenc 6y agoI see the confusion. 100% more of something = 2x more 120% more of something = 2.2x more 120% less of something (problem here!) = 2.2x less = 1 / 2.2 of something = 45% of something I think the writer meant 2.2x improvement in memory usage rather than 120% less memory usage -- the word "less" used in conjunction with a percentage is confusing.
- dwaltrip 6y agoI think this is how you evaluate X% less: amount * (1 - (x / 100)) So 120% less of 10 rocks is -2 rocks, which obviously doesn’t make sense. Which is good, it shouldn’t make sense to have more than 100% less of something.