João Miranda's blog But I digress...

About Archive Feed

An Old Story About A Web Application's Performance

One old story about the web application that took 1 full minute to load and how it ended taking about 1 second.

A few (many?) years ago, I was part of a (small) team that was building a (small) web application. I was working at Banco BPI (a bank) at the time, and the application was to be used at the bank's branches. The application was not too complex: we were building a workflow to bring under control a process that involved a lot of paper going back and forth between the branches and a back-office department.

Technically, we were using a lot of Javascript and doing most of the processing on the browser. These were early days of the AJAX explosion and the Prototype library reigned supreme (jQuery and all the other gazillions frameworks didn't exist). Happy times, when I learned how interesting and powerful Javascript was. But I digress.

We were happy with our work and we deployed it to seven branches, for a pilot program... We started to get feedback from the field: "The application is soooo slow"! "It's unusable!". We couldn't believe it. The application wasn't super fast, agreed. But it wasn't unbearable or anything like it! Bah! Those insufferable end-users. Always putting the blame on IT!

Nonetheless, we decided to visit one of those branches. It's always good to see how users actually use your application. When I arrived at the branch, a really nice (and patient!) colleague took me to her desk, typed the application's URL and we waited... and waited, staring at a big, white, blank screen... and waited. After about one minute, the page loaded. I was dismayed. What's happening here??

At the time, the bank (as most of the rest of the world) used only Internet Explorer. IE gave you (the developer) exactly ZERO help: it was a complete black-box. So I came back to the office very concerned (as expected) but also extremely curious. Troubleshooting is like detective work and I do love crime novels!

After some head scratching we got our breakthrough: the best that we could expect from branches was 128kbps networks, shared by the whole branch. That's right: 128kbps (that's kilobytes per second). Shared by all the people at the branch. Those were the best conditions. Some branches (as was the case of the one I visited) had even tighter bandwidth. Bandwidth was really expensive at the time. Why didn't we know this from the beginning? For several reasons, but that's another post (if ever).

Our next step was to check how much data we were sending down the pipe. We hadn't checked it before because... hey, it seemed fast enough in our machines and on the tester's machines. We all had nice network bandwidths.

It turned out that we were sending a couple of megabytes, IIRC. By the way, HTTP Fiddler was my best friend at the time. Amazing piece of software. But I digress... again.

So, a couple of megabytes. Oh, and we were sending that amount of data over many different HTTP requests. Remember that in those days, browsers would only do two requests simultaneously.

So we started to optimize and remove waste. We started by drastically reducing the amount of data sent over the wire, and the number of requests:

Fortunately, we already had an automated build process in place (maybe that's another story) and that allowed us to make some of the optimizations without sacrificing readability. For instance, we were able to keep our Javascript code factored into different files.

Those optimizations helped us a lot. After an initial "prefetch", where we had to "load" the application (and cache all the files), subsequent requests, even after browser restarts, only had to get the needed data. The branches were now getting about the same performance as we were. But, as I said earlier, the application wasn't super fast in our machines.

We still weren't totally happy. It was a matter of pride to make it as fast and possible. So... now what? We were dumbfounded. The network wasn't an issue anymore. The server was handling the requests pretty fast. It had to be something in the browser. Well, we were doing a lot Javascript, including major updates to the DOM. But the browser was a black-box. We had no help to do any kind of performance profiling.

I was in love with Javascript by then, so I thought: how hard can it be to build a code profiler in Javascript to profile Javascript? Not to hard, it turned out. About 200 lines of code, IIRC, including whitespace, a lot of curly braces and a bare-bones UI. We wouldn't get precise measurements, as the profiling code had a noticeable performance impact - the Heisenberg principle, I guess ;) - but it would be enough to spot the... hotspots (pun intended).

We instrumented the code and we found two main culprits:

We built a StringBuilder, changed the way we... changed the DOM and... got the page loading in about 1 second! Success! Could we have made it even faster? Probably. But we had reached a point were it didn't really matter.

Would I have gone to all this trouble today? It depends, but in the case of that application, probably not. Why? Because technology have moved on and matured. Even without most of those optimizations, the application would probably be fast enough nowadays. Browsers provide us with incredibly powerful development tools. Broadband (and wi-fi) internet is extremely fast. Javascript engines have improved by leaps and bounds. Web apps provide a nicer user experience than most desktop applications, in my opinion. I'm not alone in that belief. My current internet connection is lousy (a very uncommon scenario nowadays) and even Google's homepage is slow to load!

Why am I telling this story? Two options:

  1. As we get older, we like to tell stories about the old days and how we've seen it all before, that's why.
  2. This story has a lot of useful nuggets for the mobile web today, so I'm sharing my (immense) wisdom. I've never built a mobile web app (but I listened to a lot of experts on mobile web performance issues). OutSystems has many of those.

You choose the one you like most! Number 1? I thought so...

comments powered by Disqus