From: SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Date: 2013-08-14T00:30:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:56603] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8781][Open] Use require_relative() instead of require() if possible

(2013/08/13 19:25), Trans wrote:
> 
>     FYI: with Akira (Matsuda-san), we compare performance of require and
>     require_relative to load thousands of files.
> 
>     Without Bundler, require_relative is good performance.
>     However, with Bundler, require_relative does not help so much.
>     Maybe most of Ruby user == Rails programmer use Bundler.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why performance degrades with Bundler?
>  
> Also, I have wondered before about require_relative performance. In my
> tests it seemed like it was slower than it should be. That was about a
> year ago. Has any work been done to optimize  it --is there room to
> optimize it?

I'm sorry, it was a bad description.

This is not a degration of "require_relative()" with bundler.
Performance improvement of "require()" with Bundler.

Test do:
  (1) require some gems
  (2-1) require many files
  (2-2) require_relative many files

We compared (2-1) and (2-2).

                   require() require_relative()
without Bundler   about 7sec       about 1~2sec
with Bundler    about 1~2sec       about 1~2sec (* prepare a Gemfile)

# test code:
#
require 'bundler/setup' # with Gemfile or not
require 'haml'
require 'psych'
require 'atomic'
require 'RedCloth'
require 'rspec'

N = 5_000

unless File.exist?("test-files")
  Dir.mkdir("test-files")
  N.times{|i|
    open("test-files/test#{i}.rb", 'w')
  }
end

$: << Dir.pwd + "/test-files"
p [$:.size, $:]

N.times{|i|
  # require_relative "test-files/test#{i}"
  require "test#{i}"
}

-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net