3 ms·

I believe, in most cases of those milliseconds amount to network and database/storage latency, not site code's performance. So it's just insignificant (perform

I believe, in most cases of those milliseconds amount to network and database/storage latency, not site code's performance. So it's just insignificant (performance-wise) whenever you write site in carefully optimized C or just write some Ruby magic that performs, say, 100x slower. 1ns vs 100ns is insignificant when it's your database that responds in 300ms.

TylerE 13y ago
You couldn't be more wrong. PHP and Ruby page generation times can easily exceed 1000ms if the programmer isn't careful. Nanoseconds is just rubbish. Even the fastest template engines typically take on the order of a few ms.
- bhauer 13y ago
  TylerE is correct. Each application is its own unique snowflake, admittedly, but I encourage web developers to profile their applications to understand where server time is actually consumed. Furthermore, I implore you to realize that time spent in the ORM is not the same as time waiting for the database. If your profiler conflates ORM machinations as database time, you are not seeing the correct data. Modern databases are extremely efficient at fetching data from well-indexed tables. They are in many cases not the bottleneck although conventional wisdom would have you believe otherwise. In our experience, slower platforms consume an impressively large amount of time doing things unrelated to the actual database queries. Under load, the database server can be nearly idle while the application server is falling over itself in its slow ORM, its template engine, or helper functions. Meanwhile, faster platforms mean faster frameworks, faster ORMs, and faster templates. These platforms can easily saturate the Gigabit Ethernet connection to their database server without the database server hiccuping.
asdasf 13y ago
The site's code absolutely is part of those milliseconds. Often times it can even be tbe bulk of them, particularly in cases of PHP noobs writing the code.

TylerE 13y ago

You couldn't be more wrong. PHP and Ruby page generation times can easily exceed 1000ms if the programmer isn't careful. Nanoseconds is just rubbish. Even the fastest template engines typically take on the order of a few ms.

bhauer 13y ago
TylerE is correct. Each application is its own unique snowflake, admittedly, but I encourage web developers to profile their applications to understand where server time is actually consumed. Furthermore, I implore you to realize that time spent in the ORM is not the same as time waiting for the database. If your profiler conflates ORM machinations as database time, you are not seeing the correct data. Modern databases are extremely efficient at fetching data from well-indexed tables. They are in many cases not the bottleneck although conventional wisdom would have you believe otherwise. In our experience, slower platforms consume an impressively large amount of time doing things unrelated to the actual database queries. Under load, the database server can be nearly idle while the application server is falling over itself in its slow ORM, its template engine, or helper functions. Meanwhile, faster platforms mean faster frameworks, faster ORMs, and faster templates. These platforms can easily saturate the Gigabit Ethernet connection to their database server without the database server hiccuping.

asdasf 13y ago

The site's code absolutely is part of those milliseconds. Often times it can even be tbe bulk of them, particularly in cases of PHP noobs writing the code.