Yes, this matches my experience. I've been doing Rails full-time for about 6 years and any "slowness" has been the result of some problem, not Rails itself. 99% of the time this is an uncached n+1 query situation, or some beastly slow database operation that needs to be moved to background processing, things that would be problems in any framework or even some sort of bare-metal asm solution that nonetheless relies upon an external storage layer. =)
In a CRUD app the Rails layer should be extremely thin and the storage layer(s) should be doing nearly all of the heavy lifting.
There is a level of traffic at which even a "properly" thin Rails layer becomes the bottleneck, relative to many other frameworks.
TechEmpower benchmarks suggest it is around 2,500 requests per second in their "multiple queries" benchmark. In a more real-world scenario that might be 1,000 req/sec or less.
If one is attempting to serve more requests than this per minute then yes, perhaps Rails is the bottleneck. Admittedly, Rails' large memory consumption relative to other frameworks means it can be tough (well, technically easy, but expensive) to scale horizontally at this point.
it seems like a lot of my career has been optimizing SQL queries in Rails apps... which is often just adding the correct indexes. Kind of a lot of Rails devs just don’t know to do that
In a CRUD app the Rails layer should be extremely thin and the storage layer(s) should be doing nearly all of the heavy lifting.
There is a level of traffic at which even a "properly" thin Rails layer becomes the bottleneck, relative to many other frameworks.
TechEmpower benchmarks suggest it is around 2,500 requests per second in their "multiple queries" benchmark. In a more real-world scenario that might be 1,000 req/sec or less.
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r19&hw=...
If one is attempting to serve more requests than this per minute then yes, perhaps Rails is the bottleneck. Admittedly, Rails' large memory consumption relative to other frameworks means it can be tough (well, technically easy, but expensive) to scale horizontally at this point.