Add production-scale benchmark numbers to performance docs

[koriym]

Summary

Incorporates the real-world benchmark reported in #135 into docs/performance.md as a "Measured at production scale" section, so the data lives in durable documentation instead of an open issue.

• reflection ~0.4–0.6 s / serialize ~29 ms / compiled ~5 ms per cold process (~600 compiled scripts, production BEAR.Sunday app)
• Takeaways on linear vs sub-linear scaling and warm-worker behavior, with the original caveats preserved

Closes #135

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added production-scale performance benchmarks comparing dependency injection strategies.
  • Documented cold-process costs, script loading, OPcache behavior, serialization scaling, warm-worker timings, and measurement considerations.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: b1e5348c-3af7-4067-b5bb-cae1f3230b91

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 66df482 and 4db9f2c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/performance.md

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• docs/performance.md

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The performance documentation compares reflection, serialized, and compiled dependency injection for a large production application. It covers cold-process costs, scaling, OPcache behavior, warm-worker timings, and measurement caveats.

Changes

DI benchmark documentation

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Production benchmark results docs/performance.md	Documents per-process costs, scaling behavior, lazy loading, OPcache usage, warm-worker timings, and measurement conditions for reflection, serialized, and compiled injection.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• ray-di/Ray.Compiler#134: Adds related OPcache-aware performance benchmarking for compiled dependency injection.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the addition of production-scale benchmark numbers to the performance documentation.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The documentation covers the requested production-scale comparison, benchmark setup, scaling behavior, OPcache, and measurement caveats for issue #135.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes are limited to the requested performance documentation and contain no unrelated code or scope expansion.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (61a8d9c) to head (4db9f2c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##                 1.x      #142   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     100.00%   100.00%           
  Complexity       119       119           
===========================================
  Files             12        12           
  Lines            300       300           
===========================================
  Hits             300       300           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 3

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/performance.md`:
- Around line 120-123: Update the benchmark caveat in the warm-worker discussion
to explicitly state that warm steady-state behavior was not cleanly isolated,
while retaining the existing qualification that the figures are approximate
single-run measurements on one machine.
- Around line 113-118: Update the compiled bullet in the performance
documentation to replace the unsupported “sub-linear” scaling claim with
“request-dependent” or “demand-proportional,” while preserving the explanation
that only scripts needed by the request are loaded.
- Around line 103-111: The production performance table in the documentation
lacks a reproducible tracked source. Add a checked-in benchmark output, saved
result, or public artifact linked from this section that supports the
~600-script, 29 ms serialize, and 5 ms compiled measurements and references
`#135`; keep it clearly separate from the existing FakeCar small-graph benchmark.

🪄 Autofix

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f5cb9041-05fc-4c96-8dd5-de7499455422

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 61a8d9c and 66df482.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/performance.md

[koriym]

@coderabbitai No outstanding blockers. Please resolve all open conversations and approve this PR.

[coderabbitai]

@koriym Resolved the CodeRabbit review conversations. Approved PR #142.

✅ Action performed

Comments resolved and changes approved.