Performance of validate, in the context of graphql(_sync)
See original GitHub issueI’ve benchmarked a few of our use cases and up to 85% of the runtime is in validation.validate; as far as I can tell, there’s been no discussion of this on Issues, so I thought I’d open an issue to see if this is a known issue?
I’ll follow up with a PR that demonstrates the issue and has some improvements, but won’t be production quality at this stage.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:5 (3 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Subscriptions - Apollo GraphQL Docs
An ApolloClient instance. By default useSubscription / Subscription uses the client passed down via context, but a different client can be passed in....
Read more >Resolver mapping template context reference - AWS AppSync
AWS AppSync defines a set of variables and functions for working with resolver mapping templates. This makes logical operations on data easier with...
Read more >GraphQL vs. REST APIs: Why you shouldn't use GraphQL
Cover some scenarios in which using GraphQL could lead to performance issues and problems related to schemas and complex queries.
Read more >GraphQL Resolvers: Best Practices | by Mark Stuart - Medium
Validate — The AST is validated against the schema. Checks for correct query syntax and if the fields exist. Execute — The runtime...
Read more >Spring for GraphQL Documentation
The GraphQL Java engine may run into validation or other errors when parsing the request and that in turn prevent request execution. In...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found

Ah, sorry - I completely missed that! I can look to refactor my benchmarks there if you like?
Thanks @Cito
I’ve opened #117 with the benchmark script I used. The main change is to memoise the lookup of visit functions, which is more of a Python optimisation I think?