4 ms·
In addition, if you were to replace the Rails router with a Ruby trie implementation, it would be even faster. (not that this is encouraged)
by pushrax 12y ago
In addition, if you were to replace the Rails router with a Ruby trie implementation, it would be even faster. (not that this is encouraged)
- sjtgraham 12y agoI wrote the trie implementation referenced in the benchmarks. I didn't do it for speed, I did it because I couldn't add the router functionality I needed using the existing underlying implementation.
- pushrax 12y agoCool, nice work! I didn't actually look at the benchmark and was just making (perhaps poor) assumptions. I'd imagine it does come with a nice little performance boost though?