You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@jonathan-s That is a great question. I haven't done any benchmarking, but I would expect similar performance metrics as using a normal include. This would be easy to test I think. If you have a template that includes something in a loop, maybe several steps deep, and then at the bottom level, you put an {% include %} and measure performance. Then you replace the bottom level include with a {% component %} call, and compare the loading time.
The motivation for this library was not performance, but rather developer ergonomics in working with components. That said, I would happily accept patches that 1) adds a benchmark and 2) improve performance.
I think we should add a benchmark test in the form of a python script that renders a complex template 1000 times, first with include and then with component, and compares the results. If anyone is able to contribute such a script I'd gladly merge it.
There is a similar library for rails -> https://viewcomponent.org/ (https://github.com/github/view_component) Apparently that library is 10x faster in rendering than partials, which is the equivalent of django's include.
Do you have any idea what the performance characteristics are for this library?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: