jashmatthews

105 ms·

541.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
Both are CPU bound on de-serialization. It’s basically DB replication over HTTP plus some business logic at either end. The Sinatra version is built in a weekend which is 5x slower has authentication and does use ActiveRecord. Building an e
542.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
300ms from server side rendering requires something self inflicted. Even bulk JSON endpoints should be faster than that. 27ms is the average dynamic response time for Basecamp, which is server side rendered HTML done the classic way. I work
543.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
Out of pure curiosity what took 300ms? Image composition? Huge JSON payload serialization?
544.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
Until recently none of the Ruby setups in the TechEmpower benchmark were configured even vaguely correctly. Previously they were comparing Sinatra running on 8 cores to Go running on 40 cores. At my day job have an a prod analytics service
545.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
I work for a company exploring Rust and Go at the moment and it turns out there's little to be gained in moving away from Ruby for web app performance. Go + Gin is only about 2x faster than a modern Ruby + Sinatra + at "serialize
546.
The evidence behind strong claims about static vs. dynamic languages(danluu.com)
2 points by jashmatthews 9y ago|1 comments
547.
Faster Ruby JSON Serialization from Netflix(medium.com)
7 points by jashmatthews 9y ago|1 comments
548.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
Interesting. I was a Ruby developer in Wellington from 2013 to 2016 and felt demand was huge compared to the size of the city.
549.
by jashmatthews 9y ago
Yes. Sometimes up to 500x faster. It's not the index which is important but the table itself. PostgreSQL tables are heap tables. The index might be ordered by month but the rows it referrs to can be spread throught the entire large tab