What are the performance considerations for using anvil.server.route from anvil-uplink rather than a server module?
I assume (and may be wrong) that the call to a decorated uplink function goes through the Anvil server anyway, so I assume (and may be wrong) that from the performance point of view, a decorated server function that calls an uplink callable is identical to a decorated uplink function.
Instead of decorating a function in an uplink script I always decorate the function in the server, then call the uplink callable from the server.
I do this not because of performance considerations, but for reliability considerations: the Anvil server is up more than my uplink scripts for two reasons: my uplink server may be down when Anvil is up, and my uplink scripts are always down when Anvil is down. So I put the decorator in a server module that can have some fallback logic in case the uplink fails to respond.
1 Like
The short answer is “the same as for any other server function served by the uplink”. When a request for your app comes into Anvil, it will make a server call. If you have an uplink for that environment (or a shared one for that app) that has registered a route with the correct name, then the call will be sent to that uplink to execute; otherwise, the call will be sent to your server-side Python environment to execute. This carries additional latency (your uplink is further away than the server-side Python environment), but your uplink code is probably running there for a reason – perhaps you have a ton of compute, or it’s located next to an important database.
2 Likes