[Ur] TechEmpower Benchmarks

[escalier at riseup.net]

> I should check: 70% performance is better or worse than the baseline? :)

Worse than pure Ur/Web.

> Again, I'd be very interested in any help anyone is willing to offer on
> comparing the execution of the latest Ur/Web benchmark against one of
> the current winners for the 'plaintext' benchmark.

A sketch of that based on limited testing:

Vert.x is the current 'plaintext' winner and 3rd for 'json'. When I ran it
against Ur/Web I noticed some extraneous headers in Ur/Web's responses.
There was a duplicate 'Content-length' header (there was already a
'Content-Length' header) and a 'Content-script-type' header that was doing
nothing in that context.

Removing these bumped 'json' performance from
`621613 requests in 10.00s, 123.90MB read`
to
`651695 requests in 10.00s, 93.85MB read`
. This puts Ur/Web quite close to JITted Vert.x at
`672104 requests in 10.00s, 97.43MB read`
.

On plaintext, I got Ur/Web at
`679445 requests in 10.00s, 84.88MB read`
and warmed-up Vert.x at
`715567 requests in 10.00s, 90.08MB read`
.

I've attached a patch removing the duplicate 'Content-length'.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 910 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.impredicative.com/pipermail/ur/attachments/20131211/a9a38220/attachment.bin>