alt Hacker News > At the end of day they only increased performance by 50%.
> only 50%.
Think about it this way, if you have a task that takes an hour and you turn that into 59 minutes and 59 seconds, it might seem like nothing (0.02%). But now consider you have a million users, that's a million seconds, or 277 hrs! This can save you money, you are often paying by the hour in one way or another (even if you own the system, your energy has cost that's dynamic). If this is a task run frequently, you're saving a lot of time in aggregate, despite not a lot per person. But even for a single person, this is helpful if more devs do this. Death by a thousand cuts.
But in the specific case, if a task takes an hour and you save 50%, your task takes 30 minutes. Maybe the task here took only a few minutes, but people will be chaining these together quite a lot.
Replies
Maybe these optimizations benefit the two users who do the operation three times a year.
In such an extreme case no amount of optimization work would be profitable.
So the parent comment asks a very valid question: how much total time was saved by this and who asked for it to be saved (paying or free tier customers for example)?
People who see the business side of things rightfully fear when they hear the word "optimization", it's often not the best use of limited development resources - especially in an early stage product under development.
> 10% increases are quite large!
You have to ask yourself, 10% of what? I don’t usually mind throwing 10% more compute or memory at a problem but I do mind if its 10x more. I’ve shipped 100x perf improvements in the past where 1.5x would have been a waste of engineering time. A more typical case is a 10x or 20x improvement that’s worth a few days coding. Now, if I’m working on a mature system that’s had tens of thousands of engineering hours devoted to it, and is used by thousands of users, then I might be quite happy with 10%. Though I also may not! The broader context matters.