Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
(maybe) unexpected perf results
See original GitHub issueHey, i tested this as a drop-in replacement for the sass package,
compiling 48 files (~8k lines total) with no sass features besides nesting and variables.
These were the results (using compile & compileAsync):
sass-embedded sync 1.853s
sass-embedded async 460.744ms
sass sync 282.262ms
sass async 382.66ms
I have no issue with the current performance, but wanted to test the embedded version.
Are these expected performance results for my use-case, or could there be a problem?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:11 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
I’m not to familiar with the implementation details, but I assume there is some overhead in calling
compileAsynceach time. Not sure if that would be noticable. Would love to take a look at a sample as I’m very invested in havingembedded-sassbeing faster than the js version.I’m closing this out since, as people have mentioned, this performance difference comes down to the overhead of starting and stopping the embedded process over and over and will tend to disappear once you’re compiling real Sass stylesheets instead.
It’s worth noting that we could mitigate this overhead by adding the ability to re-use the embedded process for multiple compilations, but we’d need to come up with a good API for doing so.