lukaszraczylo/go-telegram
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/lukaszraczylo/go-telegram.git synced 2026-06-11 23:19:31 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

perf(client): pool req-body buffer + manual http.Request with cached URL

Browse Source 
Two changes that together cut allocs/call from 15 to 13 (client-internal
bench) and per-call CPU from 600ns to 455ns (-24%) on the no-HTTP path:

1. Codec gets an optional BodyEncoder extension (MarshalTo io.Writer).
   When present, encodeJSONBody stream-encodes the request directly into
   a pooled *bytes.Buffer instead of allocating a [2-step] Marshal+Reader
   pair. DefaultCodec implements it via goccy/go-json.NewEncoder.
2. *Bot caches the parsed base URL on construction. buildRequest skips
   net/http.NewRequestWithContext for the common case and constructs
   *http.Request manually — clones the URL by value, sets the method
   path, and populates ContentLength + GetBody from the body's concrete
   type so RetryDoer's body-replay across attempts still works.

Cross-library bench (sendMessage round-trip vs httptest.Server): -2
allocs/call (104 -> 102), bytes -1.2%, time within noise (real HTTP
plumbing dominates). The CPU win is visible on synthetic stub-doer
benches and translates to lower GC pressure on sustained-throughput
workloads.

Slow-path fallback preserved for codecs that don't implement BodyEncoder
and for *Bot instances where url.Parse on the configured base failed —
they take the original NewRequestWithContext path.
This commit is contained in:
Lukasz Raczylo
2026-05-10 22:36:57 +01:00
parent 607c3e8ddd
commit 75c7ce3119
9 changed files with 465 additions and 295 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/benchmarks/2026-05-10-comparison.md
+25 -24
View File
@@ -18,10 +18,10 @@
## TL;DR
- **Webhook decode** (small Update): ours is **15–19% faster** than every competitor and ties telego for the lowest alloc count (11).
- **Large Update unmarshal** (entities + reply markup + photo array): ours is **17–35% faster** with the lowest ns/op of all six. telego edges us on alloc count (31 vs 34) at the cost of ~17% more time.
- **API call round-trip** (mock HTTP server): telego wins (36.3 µs / 48 allocs) thanks to its custom binder; ours is second (38.95 µs / 104 allocs) and beats gotba, telebot, gobot.
- **Dispatcher routing** (20 handlers, last matches): ours is **2.5× faster than telebot and gobot** (101 ns vs 269 / 252 ns).
- **Webhook decode** (small Update): ours is **12–20% faster** than every competitor and ties telego for the lowest alloc count (11).
- **Large Update unmarshal** (entities + reply markup + photo array): ours is **17–34% faster** with the lowest ns/op of all six. telego edges us on alloc count (31 vs 34) at the cost of ~17% more time.
- **API call round-trip** (mock HTTP server): telego wins (35.8 µs / 48 allocs) thanks to its `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` shortcut on simple methods; ours is **second** (39.8 µs / 102 allocs) and beats gotba, telebot, gobot.
- **Dispatcher routing** (20 handlers, last matches): ours is **2.5–2.8× faster than telebot and gobot** (98 ns vs 271 / 246 ns).
## How to read these numbers
@@ -37,12 +37,12 @@ Decode `shared.SmallUpdateJSON` into the library's typed `Update` struct.
| Lib | sec/op | B/op | allocs/op |
|-----|--------|------|-----------|
| **ours** | **1.743 µs ±3%** | 2.180 KiB | **11** |
| gotba | 2.016 µs ±3% | 1.461 KiB | 17 |
| telebot | 2.073 µs ±3% | 1.773 KiB | 17 |
| gobot | 1.999 µs ±1% | 1.789 KiB | 16 |
| telego | 2.026 µs ±2% | 3.060 KiB | **11** |
| echotron | 1.973 µs ±0% | 1.680 KiB | 16 |
| **ours** | **1.832 µs ±4%** | 2.180 KiB | **11** |
| gotba | 2.082 µs ±0% | 1.461 KiB | 17 |
| telebot | 2.194 µs ±1% | 1.773 KiB | 17 |
| gobot | 2.082 µs ±1% | 1.789 KiB | 16 |
| telego | 2.143 µs ±2% | 3.058 KiB | **11** |
| echotron | 2.039 µs ±1% | 1.680 KiB | 16 |
**Notes.** We use slightly more bytes because typed unions and the typed `[]UpdateType` allocate richer Go values. We win on time and tie telego on alloc count.
@@ -52,12 +52,12 @@ Decode `shared.LargeUpdateJSON` (text + 3 entities + 2x3 inline keyboard + 3-siz
| Lib | sec/op | B/op | allocs/op |
|-----|--------|------|-----------|
| **ours** | **6.667 µs ±4%** | 5.881 KiB | 34 |
| gotba | 8.321 µs ±2% | 3.438 KiB | 56 |
| telebot | 10.240 µs ±4% | 5.594 KiB | 60 |
| gobot | 8.150 µs ±2% | 4.703 KiB | 50 |
| telego | 7.797 µs ±1% | 6.621 KiB | **31** |
| echotron | 8.072 µs ±0% | 4.219 KiB | 56 |
| **ours** | **6.726 µs ±1%** | 5.875 KiB | 34 |
| gotba | 8.066 µs ±1% | 3.438 KiB | 56 |
| telebot | 10.190 µs ±1% | 5.594 KiB | 60 |
| gobot | 8.231 µs ±1% | 4.703 KiB | 50 |
| telego | 7.849 µs ±2% | 6.600 KiB | **31** |
| echotron | 8.123 µs ±1% | 4.219 KiB | 56 |
**Notes.** Despite the typed-union model giving us richer Go values per decode, we still produce them faster than every competitor. telego edges us by 3 allocs but pays 17% more time.
@@ -67,15 +67,16 @@ Build params → POST to local `httptest.Server` returning `{"ok":true,"result":
| Lib | sec/op | B/op | allocs/op |
|-----|--------|------|-----------|
| ours | 38.95 µs ±3% | 11.17 KiB | 104 |
| gotba | 41.95 µs ±2% | 10.95 KiB | 125 |
| telebot | 43.63 µs ±0% | 13.16 KiB | 139 |
| gobot | 61.11 µs ±1% | 13.51 KiB | 176 |
| **telego** | **36.31 µs ±1%** | **6.556 KiB** | **48** |
| ours | 39.83 µs ±4% | 11.09 KiB | 102 |
| gotba | 42.03 µs ±4% | 10.97 KiB | 125 |
| telebot | 43.41 µs ±1% | 13.15 KiB | 139 |
| gobot | 61.19 µs ±1% | 13.50 KiB | 176 |
| **telego** | **35.84 µs ±1%** | **6.547 KiB** | **48** |
| echotron | *skipped — see below* | — | — |
**Notes.**
- telego wins by sending requests as `application/x-www-form-urlencoded` form data (cheaper than JSON marshal+upload for small payloads), plus an aggressive request-pool. We send JSON over `multipart/form-data` only when needed; for the JSON case our cost lands between gotba and telego.
- Our request path runs through a manually-constructed `*http.Request` with a pre-parsed base URL (cached on `*Bot`), and request bodies are stream-encoded into a pooled `*bytes.Buffer` via the optional `BodyEncoder` codec extension. Together those skip the `url.Parse` + `*http.Request` bookkeeping that `http.NewRequestWithContext` runs on every call.
- gobot's higher cost comes from per-call goroutine + channel plumbing in its dispatcher path even when called directly.
- **echotron skip:** echotron ships built-in dual-level rate limiting (30 req/s global, 20 req/min per chat) on its unexported `lclient` field. The setters that disable it (`SetGlobalRequestLimit`, `SetChatRequestLimit`) are methods on the unexported type with no public accessor through the `API` value, so the limiter cannot be bypassed without monkey-patching. A naive run produces ~3 s/op driven entirely by the per-chat token bucket — measuring rate limiting, not the library. We skip rather than publish a misleading number. The rate limiter is a feature of echotron and worth knowing about; it just makes a microbench unfair.
@@ -85,9 +86,9 @@ Register 20 command handlers (`/cmd0` … `/cmd19`); feed an update matching `/c
| Lib | sec/op | B/op | allocs/op |
|-----|--------|------|-----------|
| **ours** | **100.7 ns ±3%** | 128 B | 3 |
| telebot | 269.2 ns ±5% | 678 B | 5 |
| gobot | 251.5 ns ±4% | **48 B** | **1** |
| **ours** | **98.46 ns ±2%** | 128 B | 3 |
| telebot | 270.9 ns ±2% | 678 B | 5 |
| gobot | 246.1 ns ±1% | **48 B** | **1** |
**Notes.** We dispatch ~2.5× faster than telebot and gobot. gobot's single allocation is impressive but its routing decision is slower. telebot's higher cost reflects its richer per-update `Context` construction.