Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Faster SSR #5701
Faster SSR #5701
Changes from 3 commits
aa15e9a
e58d658
57bb045
29d4695
3a94f2a
bc4bda9
30df740
88e2146
1b0e836
61e180b
b32049b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
for what it's worth, replacing
escapes[html[i]]
withconst ch = html[i]
and then(ch === '&' ? ch === '"' ? '"' : '&' : '<')
seems to shave another 10% off the execution time when I test it.but i'm surprised the regexp performs so badly; interestingly enough, it's the function as second parameter that's the slowdown.
html.replace(/&/g, '&').replace(/</g, '<')
is pretty much exactly the same speed as the new code.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wow. Maybe we should just do that instead then? How are you getting those numbers, and can you share them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just took a 500 kb HTML document and ran
Our documents of course tend to be smaller so there is a risk this doesn't correspond to real-life performance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
.replace.replace
version runs in 3.5s, the code in the PR withescapes[html[i]]
in 3.6s, if you replace it by the ternary operator in about 3.2s, and the original code with a function as second parameter to replace in 14.5s.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my testing a
switch
on character code (charCodeAt
) is WAY faster than a simple object lookup. Don't ask me why. IE: (from another implementation)I forget but it was something like 240 ops/sec vs 280 ops/sec (on a large file). I just submitted a 30% speed improvement patch to
replace-html
library.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this is broken and it needs to be
(ch === '&' ? '&' : (ch === '"' ? '"' : '<'))
. It does appear faster than the original version in this PRThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
switch
method is slower than both the ternary and the original PR implementation in my testing with @ehrencrona's benchmark aboveThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another thing we have to keep in mind here is that almost 2 years have passed. It's very hard IMHO to micro-tune JS performance (over the long-term). Engines vary, browsers vary, things change with time. The thing that was fastest 2 years ago might bench worse today. The regex engines used in the major browsers are not all created equal.
We should be clear if we're talking benchmarks which browser, which engine... in the Svelt context perhaps we only care about Node? Just a consideration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I tested on Node. This is for server-side code, so no need to test in browsers.
Thanks for sharing your findings! It may well have been different in the past like you said and regardless it was valuable to test various ideas and ensure we're doing as well as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh for sure... we can certainly chase the peak performance (and probably should)... but we just may have to do so again in another 2 years - and make sure we're always comparing apples to apples. :). If we only need to test on Node that certainly helps a lot. Though it might not surprise me to learn if there were say differences between Node on ARM vs Node on x86_64...