📚 go-http-routing-benchmark - Awesome Go Library for Benchmarks
Go HTTP request router benchmark and comparison.
Detailed Description of go-http-routing-benchmark
Go HTTP Router Benchmark
This benchmark suite aims to compare the performance of HTTP request routers for Go by implementing the routing structure of some real world APIs. Some of the APIs are slightly adapted, since they can not be implemented 1:1 in some of the routers.
Of course the tested routers can be used for any kind of HTTP request → handler function routing, not only (REST) APIs.
Tested routers & frameworks:
- Beego
- go-json-rest
- Denco
- Gocraft Web
- Goji
- Gorilla Mux
- http.ServeMux
- HttpRouter
- HttpTreeMux
- Kocha-urlrouter
- Martini
- Pat
- Possum
- R2router
- TigerTonic
- Traffic
Motivation
Go is a great language for web applications. Since the default request multiplexer of Go's net/http package is very simple and limited, an accordingly high number of HTTP request routers exist.
Unfortunately, most of the (early) routers use pretty bad routing algorithms. Moreover, many of them are very wasteful with memory allocations, which can become a problem in a language with Garbage Collection like Go, since every (heap) allocation results in more work for the Garbage Collector.
Lately more and more bloated frameworks pop up, outdoing one another in the number of features. This benchmark tries to measure their overhead.
Be aware that we are comparing apples and oranges here. We compare feature-rich frameworks to packages with simple routing functionality only. But since we are only interested in decent request routing, I think this is not entirely unfair. The frameworks are configured to do as little additional work as possible.
If you care about performance, this benchmark can maybe help you find the right router, which scales with your application.
Personally, I prefer slim and optimized software, which is why I implemented HttpRouter, which is also tested here. In fact, this benchmark suite started as part of the packages tests, but was then extended to a generic benchmark suite. So keep in mind, that I am not completely unbiased :relieved:
Results
Benchmark System:
- Intel Core i5-2500K (4x 3,30GHz + Turbo Boost), CPU-governor: performance
- 2x 4 GiB DDR3-1333 RAM, dual-channel
- go version go1.3rc1 linux/amd64
- Ubuntu 14.04 amd64 (Linux Kernel 3.13.0-29), fresh installation
Memory Consumption
Besides the micro-benchmarks, there are 3 sets of benchmarks where we play around with clones of some real-world APIs, and one benchmark with static routes only, to allow a comparison with http.ServeMux. The following table shows the memory required only for loading the routing structure for the respective API. The best 3 values for each test are bold. I'm pretty sure you can detect a pattern :wink:
| Router | Static | GitHub | Google+ | Parse |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HttpServeMux | 18064 B | - | - | - |
| Beego | 79472 B | 497248 B | 26480 B | 38768 B |
| Denco | 44752 B | 107632 B | 54896 B | 36368 B |
| Gocraft Web | 57976 B | 95736 B | 8024 B | 13120 B |
| Goji | 32400 B | 58424 B | 3392 B | 6704 B |
| Go-Json-Rest | 152608 B | 148352 B | 11696 B | 13712 B |
| Gorilla Mux | 685152 B | 1557216 B | 80240 B | 125480 B |
| HttpRouter | 26232 B | 44344 B | 3144 B | 5792 B |
| HttpTreeMux | 75624 B | 81408 B | 7712 B | 7616 B |
| Kocha | 130336 B | 811744 B | 139968 B | 191632 B |
| Martini | 312592 B | 579472 B | 27520 B | 50608 B |
| Pat | 21272 B | 18968 B | 1448 B | 2360 B |
| TigerTonic | 85264 B | 99392 B | 10576 B | 11008 B |
| Traffic | 649568 B | 1124704 B | 57984 B | 98168 B |
The first place goes to Pat, followed by HttpRouter and Goji. Now, before everyone starts reading the documentation of Pat, [SPOILER] this low memory consumption comes at the price of relatively bad routing performance. The routing structure of Pat is simple - probably too simple. [/SPOILER].
Moreover main memory is cheap and usually not a scarce resource. As long as the router doesn't require Megabytes of memory, it should be no deal breaker. But it gives us a first hint how efficient or wasteful a router works.
Static Routes
The Static benchmark is not really a clone of a real-world API. It is just a collection of random static paths inspired by the structure of the Go directory. It might not be a realistic URL-structure.
The only intention of this benchmark is to allow a comparison with the default router of Go's net/http package, http.ServeMux, which is limited to static routes and does not support parameters in the route pattern.
In the StaticAll benchmark each of 157 URLs is called once per repetition (op, operation). If you are unfamiliar with the go test -bench tool, the first number is the number of repetitions the go test tool made, to get a test running long enough for measurements. The second column shows the time in nanoseconds that a single repetition takes. The third number is the amount of heap memory allocated in bytes, the last one the average number of allocations made per repetition.
The logs below show, that http.ServeMux has only medium performance, compared to more feature-rich routers. The fastest router only needs 1.8% of the time http.ServeMux needs.
HttpRouter was the first router (I know of) that managed to serve all the static URLs without a single heap allocation. Since the first run of this benchmark more routers followed this trend and were optimized in the same way.
BenchmarkHttpServeMux_StaticAll 5000 706222 ns/op 96 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_StaticAll 2000 1408954 ns/op 482433 B/op 14088 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_StaticAll 200000 12679 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_StaticAll 10000 154142 ns/op 51468 B/op 947 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_StaticAll 20000 80518 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_StaticAll 2000 978164 ns/op 180973 B/op 3945 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_StaticAll 1000 1763690 ns/op 71804 B/op 956 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_StaticAll 100000 15010 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_StaticAll 100000 15123 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_StaticAll 100000 23093 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_StaticAll 500 3444278 ns/op 156015 B/op 2351 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_StaticAll 1000 1640745 ns/op 549187 B/op 11186 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_StaticAll 50000 58264 ns/op 7714 B/op 157 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_StaticAll 500 7230129 ns/op 3763731 B/op 27453 allocs/op
Micro Benchmarks
The following benchmarks measure the cost of some very basic operations.
In the first benchmark, only a single route, containing a parameter, is loaded into the routers. Then a request for a URL matching this pattern is made and the router has to call the respective registered handler function. End.
BenchmarkBeego_Param 500000 5495 ns/op 1165 B/op 14 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_Param 5000000 312 ns/op 50 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_Param 1000000 1440 ns/op 684 B/op 9 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_Param 5000000 748 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_Param 500000 6980 ns/op 1787 B/op 29 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_Param 1000000 2665 ns/op 780 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_Param 20000000 139 ns/op 33 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_Param 5000000 558 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_Param 5000000 377 ns/op 58 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_Param 500000 6265 ns/op 1251 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_Param 1000000 1620 ns/op 670 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_Param 1000000 2766 ns/op 1015 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_Param 500000 4440 ns/op 2013 B/op 22 allocs/op
Same as before, but now with multiple parameters, all in the same single route. The intention is to see how the routers scale with the number of parameters. The values of the parameters must be passed to the handler function somehow, which requires allocations. Let's see how clever the routers solve this task with a route containing 5 and 20 parameters:
BenchmarkBeego_Param5 100000 18473 ns/op 1291 B/op 14 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_Param5 2000000 982 ns/op 405 B/op 5 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_Param5 1000000 2218 ns/op 957 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_Param5 1000000 1093 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_Param5 200000 10462 ns/op 3264 B/op 40 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_Param5 500000 4680 ns/op 906 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_Param5 5000000 319 ns/op 162 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_Param5 2000000 898 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_Param5 1000000 1326 ns/op 448 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_Param5 200000 13027 ns/op 1376 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_Param5 500000 3416 ns/op 1435 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_Param5 200000 9247 ns/op 2568 B/op 41 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_Param5 500000 7206 ns/op 2312 B/op 26 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_Param20 10000 106746 ns/op 3681 B/op 17 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_Param20 1000000 2882 ns/op 1666 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_Param20 500000 7156 ns/op 3857 B/op 16 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_Param20 1000000 3197 ns/op 1260 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_Param20 100000 25809 ns/op 10605 B/op 75 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_Param20 200000 9885 ns/op 3295 B/op 9 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_Param20 2000000 954 ns/op 646 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_Param20 500000 5016 ns/op 2216 B/op 4 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_Param20 500000 4268 ns/op 1836 B/op 17 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_Param20 50000 55039 ns/op 3765 B/op 14 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_Param20 500000 3412 ns/op 1435 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_Param20 50000 36825 ns/op 10710 B/op 131 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_Param20 100000 22605 ns/op 8077 B/op 49 allocs/op
Now let's see how expensive it is to access a parameter. The handler function reads the value (by the name of the parameter, e.g. with a map lookup; depends on the router) and writes it to our web scale storage (/dev/null).
BenchmarkBeego_ParamWrite 500000 6604 ns/op 1602 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_ParamWrite 5000000 377 ns/op 50 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_ParamWrite 1000000 1590 ns/op 693 B/op 9 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_ParamWrite 2000000 818 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_ParamWrite 200000 8388 ns/op 2265 B/op 33 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_ParamWrite 1000000 2913 ns/op 780 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_ParamWrite 10000000 193 ns/op 33 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_ParamWrite 5000000 649 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_ParamWrite 5000000 435 ns/op 58 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_ParamWrite 500000 7538 ns/op 1359 B/op 15 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_ParamWrite 1000000 2940 ns/op 1109 B/op 15 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_ParamWrite 500000 4639 ns/op 1471 B/op 23 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_ParamWrite 500000 5855 ns/op 2435 B/op 25 allocs/op
Parse.com
Enough of the micro benchmark stuff. Let's play a bit with real APIs. In the first set of benchmarks, we use a clone of the structure of Parse's decent medium-sized REST API, consisting of 26 routes.
The tasks are 1.) routing a static URL (no parameters), 2.) routing a URL containing 1 parameter, 3.) same with 2 parameters, 4.) route all of the routes once (like the StaticAll benchmark, but the routes now contain parameters).
Worth noting is, that the requested route might be a good case for some routing algorithms, while it is a bad case for another algorithm. The values might vary slightly depending on the selected route.
BenchmarkBeego_ParseStatic 500000 3461 ns/op 1247 B/op 15 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_ParseStatic 50000000 42.6 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_ParseStatic 2000000 889 ns/op 328 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_ParseStatic 5000000 341 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_ParseStatic 500000 5860 ns/op 1136 B/op 25 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_ParseStatic 1000000 2760 ns/op 456 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_ParseStatic 50000000 36.7 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_ParseStatic 50000000 62.6 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_ParseStatic 50000000 72.2 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_ParseStatic 500000 5528 ns/op 927 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_ParseStatic 2000000 809 ns/op 246 B/op 5 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_ParseStatic 10000000 264 ns/op 49 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_ParseStatic 500000 5008 ns/op 2377 B/op 24 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_ParseParam 500000 7983 ns/op 1775 B/op 28 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_ParseParam 5000000 347 ns/op 50 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_ParseParam 1000000 1535 ns/op 700 B/op 9 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_ParseParam 2000000 983 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_ParseParam 500000 7208 ns/op 1789 B/op 29 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_ParseParam 1000000 3186 ns/op 780 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_ParseParam 10000000 178 ns/op 65 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_ParseParam 5000000 617 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_ParseParam 5000000 413 ns/op 58 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_ParseParam 500000 7524 ns/op 1251 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_ParseParam 1000000 2707 ns/op 1160 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_ParseParam 1000000 3010 ns/op 1048 B/op 19 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_ParseParam 500000 5228 ns/op 2314 B/op 24 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_Parse2Params 200000 9217 ns/op 1935 B/op 28 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_Parse2Params 5000000 542 ns/op 115 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_Parse2Params 1000000 1756 ns/op 750 B/op 10 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_Parse2Params 2000000 954 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_Parse2Params 500000 8131 ns/op 2145 B/op 32 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_Parse2Params 500000 3623 ns/op 812 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_Parse2Params 10000000 202 ns/op 65 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_Parse2Params 5000000 708 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_Parse2Params 5000000 666 ns/op 132 B/op 4 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_Parse2Params 200000 7723 ns/op 1283 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_Parse2Params 1000000 2687 ns/op 887 B/op 19 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_Parse2Params 500000 4720 ns/op 1473 B/op 28 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_Parse2Params 500000 5467 ns/op 2120 B/op 24 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_ParseAll 10000 197920 ns/op 38877 B/op 616 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_ParseAll 500000 7692 ns/op 1000 B/op 35 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_ParseAll 50000 36226 ns/op 14639 B/op 208 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_ParseAll 100000 19721 ns/op 5448 B/op 32 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_ParseAll 10000 180128 ns/op 41202 B/op 727 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_ParseAll 10000 120929 ns/op 17138 B/op 173 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_ParseAll 500000 3592 ns/op 660 B/op 16 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_ParseAll 200000 11650 ns/op 5452 B/op 32 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_ParseAll 200000 9371 ns/op 1163 B/op 44 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_ParseAll 10000 200307 ns/op 29375 B/op 305 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_ParseAll 50000 53113 ns/op 18017 B/op 363 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_ParseAll 50000 67208 ns/op 20547 B/op 419 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_ParseAll 10000 164938 ns/op 70161 B/op 743 allocs/op
GitHub
The GitHub API is rather large, consisting of 203 routes. The tasks are basically the same as in the benchmarks before.
BenchmarkBeego_GithubStatic 500000 3880 ns/op 1148 B/op 31 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GithubStatic 50000000 60.5 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GithubStatic 2000000 933 ns/op 328 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GithubStatic 5000000 401 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GithubStatic 500000 6006 ns/op 1150 B/op 25 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GithubStatic 100000 18227 ns/op 456 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GithubStatic 50000000 63.2 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GithubStatic 50000000 65.1 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GithubStatic 20000000 99.5 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GithubStatic 100000 18546 ns/op 927 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GithubStatic 200000 11503 ns/op 3754 B/op 76 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GithubStatic 5000000 308 ns/op 49 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GithubStatic 50000 44923 ns/op 23105 B/op 168 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_GithubParam 50000 44645 ns/op 2973 B/op 50 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GithubParam 5000000 643 ns/op 115 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GithubParam 1000000 1855 ns/op 750 B/op 10 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GithubParam 1000000 1314 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GithubParam 200000 8427 ns/op 2159 B/op 32 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GithubParam 200000 11485 ns/op 813 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GithubParam 5000000 304 ns/op 97 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GithubParam 2000000 770 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GithubParam 5000000 754 ns/op 132 B/op 4 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GithubParam 100000 22637 ns/op 1284 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GithubParam 500000 7319 ns/op 2538 B/op 44 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GithubParam 500000 4722 ns/op 1467 B/op 26 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GithubParam 100000 18700 ns/op 7076 B/op 58 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_GithubAll 100 23430165 ns/op 502614 B/op 9871 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GithubAll 10000 120365 ns/op 21219 B/op 506 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GithubAll 5000 358982 ns/op 139091 B/op 1903 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GithubAll 5000 604522 ns/op 56896 B/op 340 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GithubAll 1000 1645794 ns/op 404222 B/op 6303 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GithubAll 500 6634737 ns/op 152277 B/op 1402 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GithubAll 50000 51138 ns/op 14039 B/op 168 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GithubAll 10000 132507 ns/op 56907 B/op 340 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GithubAll 10000 143398 ns/op 24117 B/op 676 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GithubAll 200 9802351 ns/op 258349 B/op 2713 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GithubAll 500 4154815 ns/op 1539081 B/op 24970 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GithubAll 2000 920839 ns/op 247085 B/op 5171 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GithubAll 200 8087393 ns/op 3143039 B/op 23958 allocs/op
Google+
Last but not least the Google+ API, consisting of 13 routes. In reality this is just a subset of a much larger API.
BenchmarkBeego_GPlusStatic 1000000 2321 ns/op 808 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GPlusStatic 50000000 37.2 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GPlusStatic 2000000 862 ns/op 312 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GPlusStatic 10000000 270 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GPlusStatic 500000 5827 ns/op 1136 B/op 25 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GPlusStatic 1000000 1793 ns/op 456 B/op 6 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GPlusStatic 50000000 34.6 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GPlusStatic 50000000 35.4 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GPlusStatic 50000000 63.8 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GPlusStatic 500000 4887 ns/op 927 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GPlusStatic 5000000 336 ns/op 98 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GPlusStatic 10000000 186 ns/op 33 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GPlusStatic 500000 3350 ns/op 1503 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_GPlusParam 200000 7657 ns/op 1231 B/op 16 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GPlusParam 5000000 365 ns/op 50 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GPlusParam 1000000 1519 ns/op 684 B/op 9 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GPlusParam 2000000 889 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GPlusParam 500000 7388 ns/op 1806 B/op 29 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GPlusParam 500000 4040 ns/op 780 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GPlusParam 10000000 203 ns/op 65 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GPlusParam 5000000 638 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GPlusParam 5000000 444 ns/op 58 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GPlusParam 200000 8672 ns/op 1251 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GPlusParam 1000000 1895 ns/op 719 B/op 12 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GPlusParam 1000000 3166 ns/op 1085 B/op 18 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GPlusParam 500000 5369 ns/op 2030 B/op 22 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_GPlus2Params 200000 9999 ns/op 1293 B/op 16 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GPlus2Params 5000000 618 ns/op 115 B/op 3 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GPlus2Params 1000000 1860 ns/op 750 B/op 10 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GPlus2Params 1000000 1296 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GPlus2Params 200000 8516 ns/op 2178 B/op 32 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GPlus2Params 200000 9007 ns/op 812 B/op 7 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GPlus2Params 10000000 246 ns/op 65 B/op 1 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GPlus2Params 2000000 751 ns/op 340 B/op 2 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GPlus2Params 5000000 744 ns/op 132 B/op 4 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GPlus2Params 100000 27700 ns/op 1382 B/op 16 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GPlus2Params 500000 5981 ns/op 2347 B/op 34 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GPlus2Params 500000 5076 ns/op 1561 B/op 27 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GPlus2Params 200000 12711 ns/op 3599 B/op 34 allocs/op
BenchmarkBeego_GPlusAll 10000 113601 ns/op 15897 B/op 217 allocs/op
BenchmarkDenco_GPlusAll 500000 5761 ns/op 880 B/op 27 allocs/op
BenchmarkGocraftWeb_GPlusAll 100000 20527 ns/op 8513 B/op 116 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoji_GPlusAll 200000 12312 ns/op 3746 B/op 22 allocs/op
BenchmarkGoJsonRest_GPlusAll 20000 99250 ns/op 23871 B/op 386 allocs/op
BenchmarkGorillaMux_GPlusAll 50000 63046 ns/op 9655 B/op 90 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpRouter_GPlusAll 1000000 2513 ns/op 655 B/op 11 allocs/op
BenchmarkHttpTreeMux_GPlusAll 500000 7706 ns/op 3748 B/op 22 allocs/op
BenchmarkKocha_GPlusAll 500000 6858 ns/op 1017 B/op 35 allocs/op
BenchmarkMartini_GPlusAll 10000 155402 ns/op 16368 B/op 179 allocs/op
BenchmarkPat_GPlusAll 50000 47397 ns/op 17270 B/op 302 allocs/op
BenchmarkTigerTonic_GPlusAll 50000 49864 ns/op 15160 B/op 311 allocs/op
BenchmarkTraffic_GPlusAll 10000 108007 ns/op 41779 B/op 430 allocs/op
Conclusions
First of all, there is no reason to use net/http's default ServeMux, which is very limited and does not have especially good performance. There are enough alternatives coming in every flavor, choose the one you like best.
Secondly, the broad range of functions of some of the frameworks comes at a high price in terms of performance. For example Martini has great flexibility, but very bad performance. Martini has the worst performance of all tested routers in a lot of the benchmarks. Beego seems to have some scalability problems and easily defeats Martini with even worse performance, when the number of parameters or routes is high. I really hope, that the routing of these packages can be optimized. I think the Go-ecosystem needs great feature-rich frameworks like these.
Last but not least, we have to determine the performance champion.
Denco and its predecessor Kocha-urlrouter seem to have great performance, but are not convenient to use as a router for the net/http package. A lot of extra work is necessary to use it as a http.Handler. The README of Denco claims, that the package is not intended as a replacement for http.ServeMux.
Goji looks very decent. It has great performance while also having a great range of features, more than any other router / framework in the top group.
Currently no router can beat the performance of the HttpRouter package, which currently dominates nearly all benchmarks.
In the end, performance can not be the (only) criterion for choosing a router. Play around a bit with some of the routers, and choose the one you like best.
Usage
If you'd like to run these benchmarks locally, you'll need to install the package first:
go get github.com/julienschmidt/go-http-routing-benchmark
This may take a while due to the large number of dependencies that need to be downloaded. Once that command has finished you can run the full set of benchmarks like this:
cd $GOPATH/src/github.com/julienschmidt/go-http-routing-benchmark
go test -bench=.
Note: If you run the tests and it SIGQUIT's make the go test timeout longer (#44)
go test -timeout=2h -bench=.
You can bench specific frameworks only by using a regular expression as the value of the bench parameter:
go test -bench="Martini|Gin|HttpMux"