4 ms·
Why is there a filter limit at all? Why did Firefox add that? Can config change it?
by flangola7 3y ago
Why is there a filter limit at all? Why did Firefox add that? Can config change it?
- postalrat 3y agoFilters aren't free
- wtallis 3y agoThey are quite often better than free, blocking unwanted content that would consume more memory and CPU time than the filter itself.
- JacobSeated 3y agoFilters take a minuscule amount of resources. E.g. Even if you had to loop over a list with thousands of entries this would be unlikely to matter, and can in fact even be optimized quite significantly with various algorithms. However, because a database is most likely used, this is not even an issue, and the resource use will in fact be truly minimal. I can not give you an exact number, but it is massively bigger than the number of trackers / elements that any usable web page can realistically implement. Probably you can do several thousands database calls in less than a second due to indexing; and that can be further optimized by doing it in batches, bringing it up to tens of thousands, if not in the hundreds on modern PCs. It is literally not an issue.
- postalrat 3y agoIs the limit still around 30,000 or is it higher? That could be 600,000 filter checks on a page load with 20 requests. I'm sure it's fast but if people want unlimited number of rules that number could start exploding.
- bornfreddy 3y ago> Why did Firefox add that? They didn't, Google did. It is part of MV3 specs, afaik.
- _aizw 3y agoBut Firefox still didn't have to implement the limit.
- _v7gu 3y agoThen don't use the downgraded version of the ad blocker? What is the point of having two versions of MV3 when you can use a superior adblocker on Firefox anyway?
- flangola7 3y agoGoogle doesn't make Firefox. I flatly don't understand why Mozilla has that limit.