-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Segment Cache] Prioritize route trees over segments #75213
Merged
acdlite
merged 1 commit into
vercel:canary
from
acdlite:segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree
Jan 23, 2025
Merged
[Segment Cache] Prioritize route trees over segments #75213
acdlite
merged 1 commit into
vercel:canary
from
acdlite:segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree
Jan 23, 2025
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When processing the prefetch queue, we should prioritize fetching the route trees for all the links before we fetch any of the segments. The reason the route tree is more important is because it tells us the structure of the target page; from this alone, we can determine which segments are already cached and skip them during the navigation. Whereas if the route tree is missing at the time of the navigation, we cannot instruct the server to skip over prefetched segments, because we don't know which ones to skip. To implement this, I added a `phase` property to the PrefetchTask type. This is essentially a secondary priority field that changes as the task progresses. There are two phases: `RouteTree` and `Segments`. Any task in the `RouteTree` phase has higher priority than tasks in the `Segments` phase. Another way to implement this would be to add a secondary queue for segment prefetches. This would require reference counting to clean up segments when there are no more tasks that depend on them. The ref count could also be used as an additional prioritization heuristic: shared layouts with many dependent tasks could be prioritized over segments with fewer. However, I'm not sure the benefits are worth the extra code/complexity, so I'm starting with this simpler approach.
Tests Passed |
Stats from current PRDefault Build (Increase detected
|
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
buildDuration | 21.1s | 19s | N/A |
buildDurationCached | 18.2s | 15.4s | N/A |
nodeModulesSize | 419 MB | 419 MB | |
nextStartRea..uration (ms) | 478ms | 475ms | N/A |
Client Bundles (main, webpack)
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
5306-HASH.js gzip | 54.1 kB | 54.1 kB | N/A |
8276.HASH.js gzip | 169 B | 168 B | N/A |
8377-HASH.js gzip | 5.46 kB | 5.46 kB | N/A |
bccd1874-HASH.js gzip | 52.9 kB | 52.9 kB | N/A |
framework-HASH.js gzip | 57.5 kB | 57.5 kB | N/A |
main-app-HASH.js gzip | 240 B | 242 B | N/A |
main-HASH.js gzip | 34.6 kB | 34.6 kB | N/A |
webpack-HASH.js gzip | 1.71 kB | 1.71 kB | N/A |
Overall change | 0 B | 0 B | ✓ |
Legacy Client Bundles (polyfills)
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
polyfills-HASH.js gzip | 39.4 kB | 39.4 kB | ✓ |
Overall change | 39.4 kB | 39.4 kB | ✓ |
Client Pages
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
_app-HASH.js gzip | 193 B | 193 B | ✓ |
_error-HASH.js gzip | 193 B | 193 B | ✓ |
amp-HASH.js gzip | 512 B | 510 B | N/A |
css-HASH.js gzip | 343 B | 342 B | N/A |
dynamic-HASH.js gzip | 1.84 kB | 1.84 kB | ✓ |
edge-ssr-HASH.js gzip | 265 B | 265 B | ✓ |
head-HASH.js gzip | 363 B | 362 B | N/A |
hooks-HASH.js gzip | 393 B | 392 B | N/A |
image-HASH.js gzip | 4.59 kB | 4.58 kB | N/A |
index-HASH.js gzip | 268 B | 268 B | ✓ |
link-HASH.js gzip | 2.35 kB | 2.35 kB | N/A |
routerDirect..HASH.js gzip | 328 B | 328 B | ✓ |
script-HASH.js gzip | 397 B | 397 B | ✓ |
withRouter-HASH.js gzip | 323 B | 326 B | N/A |
1afbb74e6ecf..834.css gzip | 106 B | 106 B | ✓ |
Overall change | 3.59 kB | 3.59 kB | ✓ |
Client Build Manifests
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
_buildManifest.js gzip | 748 B | 747 B | N/A |
Overall change | 0 B | 0 B | ✓ |
Rendered Page Sizes
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
index.html gzip | 523 B | 522 B | N/A |
link.html gzip | 538 B | 537 B | N/A |
withRouter.html gzip | 520 B | 520 B | ✓ |
Overall change | 520 B | 520 B | ✓ |
Edge SSR bundle Size
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
edge-ssr.js gzip | 129 kB | 129 kB | N/A |
page.js gzip | 209 kB | 209 kB | N/A |
Overall change | 0 B | 0 B | ✓ |
Middleware size
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
middleware-b..fest.js gzip | 670 B | 667 B | N/A |
middleware-r..fest.js gzip | 155 B | 156 B | N/A |
middleware.js gzip | 31.3 kB | 31.3 kB | N/A |
edge-runtime..pack.js gzip | 844 B | 844 B | ✓ |
Overall change | 844 B | 844 B | ✓ |
Next Runtimes
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
274-experime...dev.js gzip | 322 B | 322 B | ✓ |
274.runtime.dev.js gzip | 314 B | 314 B | ✓ |
app-page-exp...dev.js gzip | 376 kB | 376 kB | N/A |
app-page-exp..prod.js gzip | 131 kB | 131 kB | N/A |
app-page-tur..prod.js gzip | 144 kB | 144 kB | N/A |
app-page-tur..prod.js gzip | 140 kB | 140 kB | N/A |
app-page.run...dev.js gzip | 364 kB | 364 kB | N/A |
app-page.run..prod.js gzip | 127 kB | 127 kB | N/A |
app-route-ex...dev.js gzip | 37.6 kB | 37.6 kB | ✓ |
app-route-ex..prod.js gzip | 25.6 kB | 25.6 kB | ✓ |
app-route-tu..prod.js gzip | 25.6 kB | 25.6 kB | ✓ |
app-route-tu..prod.js gzip | 25.4 kB | 25.4 kB | ✓ |
app-route.ru...dev.js gzip | 39.2 kB | 39.2 kB | ✓ |
app-route.ru..prod.js gzip | 25.4 kB | 25.4 kB | ✓ |
pages-api-tu..prod.js gzip | 9.69 kB | 9.69 kB | ✓ |
pages-api.ru...dev.js gzip | 11.6 kB | 11.6 kB | ✓ |
pages-api.ru..prod.js gzip | 9.68 kB | 9.68 kB | ✓ |
pages-turbo...prod.js gzip | 21.9 kB | 21.9 kB | ✓ |
pages.runtim...dev.js gzip | 27.7 kB | 27.7 kB | ✓ |
pages.runtim..prod.js gzip | 21.9 kB | 21.9 kB | ✓ |
server.runti..prod.js gzip | 916 kB | 916 kB | ✓ |
Overall change | 1.2 MB | 1.2 MB | ✓ |
build cache Overall increase ⚠️
vercel/next.js canary | acdlite/next.js segment-cache-prioritize-route-tree | Change | |
---|---|---|---|
0.pack gzip | 2.1 MB | 2.1 MB | N/A |
index.pack gzip | 75.4 kB | 75.7 kB | |
Overall change | 75.4 kB | 75.7 kB |
Diff details
Diff for 5306-HASH.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for main-HASH.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page-exp..ntime.dev.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page-exp..time.prod.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page-tur..time.prod.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page-tur..time.prod.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page.runtime.dev.js
Diff too large to display
Diff for app-page.runtime.prod.js
Diff too large to display
lubieowoce
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When processing the prefetch queue, we should prioritize fetching the route trees for all the links before we fetch any of the segments.
The reason the route tree is more important is because it tells us the structure of the target page; from this alone, we can determine which segments are already cached and skip them during the navigation. Whereas if the route tree is missing at the time of the navigation, we cannot instruct the server to skip over prefetched segments, because we don't know which ones to skip.
To implement this, I added a
phase
property to the PrefetchTask type. This is essentially a secondary priority field that changes as the task progresses. There are two phases:RouteTree
andSegments
. Any task in theRouteTree
phase has higher priority than tasks in theSegments
phase.Another way to implement this would be to add a secondary queue for segment prefetches. This would require reference counting to clean up segments when there are no more tasks that depend on them. The ref count could also be used as an additional prioritization heuristic: shared layouts with many dependent tasks could be prioritized over segments with fewer. However, I'm not sure the benefits are worth the extra code/complexity, so I'm starting with this simpler approach.