I have no idea where you get 400ms on average. Here's the log for a blog post page of my site. It's a heavy and big page, it's on ruby 1.8.7 and rails 3, and I haven't done anything to make it faster. I could cache most of it rather easily.
Completed 200 OK in 205ms (Views: 168.9ms | ActiveRecord: 23.2ms | Sphinx: 9.6ms)
edit: a couple of notes. This is running on a cheap vps and would be faster on a real server. It would be faster if I used ruby 1.9 as well. If you want to see how fast a bare ruby webserver is then check out this. http://torquebox.org/news/2011/02/23/benchmarking-torquebox/
Performance depends on the application. You are spending 168ms rendering. If the page had a few more partials or some more data, you could be seeing 400ms for that page easily.
Rails view/partial rendering is pretty slow in general.
i know, but as I said, that page is pretty heavy and it's not close to 400ms. It's on a cheap vps and using 1.8.7, And I could easily cache most of it.
I think the some people could have read the comment I replied to and believe that 400ms is somehow normal. It's not.
It sounded to me as if you believed this was typical for a rails site. Maybe I read it wrong, but it isn't typical for a rails app that I've ever done.
Completed 200 OK in 205ms (Views: 168.9ms | ActiveRecord: 23.2ms | Sphinx: 9.6ms)
edit: a couple of notes. This is running on a cheap vps and would be faster on a real server. It would be faster if I used ruby 1.9 as well. If you want to see how fast a bare ruby webserver is then check out this. http://torquebox.org/news/2011/02/23/benchmarking-torquebox/