Slate set_node on wide sibling arrays: benchmark note

Summary

I ran into a large perf cliff while benchmarking Plate against Slate on huge documents.

Plate had a bug on its side: initial nodeId normalization was using a live Slate transform once per missing id. That is now fixed in Plate by walking the initial value directly.

While isolating that, I benchmarked the same repeated exact-path update shape inside slate itself. The result is consistent:

• repeated Transforms.setNodes(...) on a flat huge document is dominated by the set_node transform path
• the dominant cost is not normalization
• the dominant cost is not path refs / range refs / dirty-path bookkeeping
• the dominant cost appears to be immutable ancestor-array rewriting in modifyDescendant, especially when the parent array is very wide

This is not a DOM benchmark. It is a pure transform benchmark.

Repro

Benchmark file:

• packages/slate/test/perf/set-nodes-bench.js

Commands:

bun ./packages/slate/test/perf/set-nodes-bench.js --blocks=5000 --group-size=50 --repeats=5
bun ./packages/slate/test/perf/set-nodes-bench.js --blocks=10000 --group-size=50 --repeats=3

What The Benchmark Compares

For the same total paragraph count, it compares:

1. flat document every paragraph is a top-level sibling
2. grouped document the same paragraphs are distributed under section parents of size 50

For each shape, it measures:

1. Transforms.setNodes(editor, { id }, { at: path }) per exact path
2. the same loop inside Editor.withoutNormalizing(...)
3. direct editor.apply({ type: 'set_node', ... }) inside Editor.withoutNormalizing(...)
4. bare modifyDescendant(...)
5. a one-pass rewrite lower bound

The timed apply wrapper also splits:

• ref transforms
• dirty-path updates
• Transforms.transform(...)
• Editor.normalize(...)

Source Path

The relevant code path looks like this:

• packages/slate/src/transforms-node/set-nodes.ts
  • loops matched nodes and calls editor.apply({ type: 'set_node', ... })
• packages/slate/src/interfaces/transforms/general.ts
  • set_node case calls modifyDescendant(...)
• packages/slate/src/utils/modify.ts
  • modifyDescendant(...) rebuilds ancestor chains with replaceChildren(...)
  • replaceChildren(...) uses array slicing/spreading

That makes repeated exact-path set_node operations sensitive to parent-array width.

Results

5,000 paragraphs

10,000 paragraphs

Timed apply breakdown

At 10,000 flat paragraphs:

• applyTotalMs: 146.12 ms
• transformMs: 138.00 ms
• dirtyPathsMs: 2.37 ms
• normalizeMs: 1.76 ms
• path/point/range refs combined: about 2.56 ms

At 10,000 grouped paragraphs:

• applyTotalMs: 21.81 ms
• transformMs: 12.51 ms
• dirtyPathsMs: 3.78 ms
• normalizeMs: 0.78 ms

Interpretation

The strongest signal is shape sensitivity.

The same number of paragraph nodes gets much cheaper as soon as wide top-level sibling arrays become smaller grouped arrays. That strongly suggests the main cost is not generic normalization overhead. It is the repeated immutable rewrite of ancestor chains, especially wide children arrays.

The modifyDescendant(...) numbers are the clearest evidence:

• 5,000 flat: 37.01 ms
• 5,000 grouped: 2.38 ms
• 10,000 flat: 140.11 ms
• 10,000 grouped: 7.25 ms

That is already most of the apply(set_node) cost.

So the current behavior seems to be:

• setNodes(...) itself adds some overhead
• apply(...) adds some overhead
• but most of the real cost is still the underlying immutable tree rewrite in the set_node transform path

Why I Think This Is Worth Flagging

This does not mean Slate is doing something incorrect.

It does mean there may be an upstream optimization seam for workloads that need to set many exact-path node props on very wide sibling arrays.

The Plate bug is fixed locally by avoiding this pattern during initial-value normalization. But the underlying Slate transform shape still looks expensive enough that it may be worth considering an optimization for exact-path bulk updates.

Possible Upstream Directions

These are just candidate ideas, not a fully baked proposal:

1. Add a batched exact-path set_node path. If the caller already has exact paths, shared ancestors could be rebuilt once instead of once per op.

2. Add an internal fast path for setNodes when:

   • at is an exact Path
   • there is no range splitting
   • there is no broad match traversal
   • the update is just property replacement

3. Add a lower-level “apply many node property updates” helper. This could preserve Slate semantics while avoiding repeated ancestor cloning for the same parent chain.

Caveats

• This is a Node-side microbenchmark, not a browser mount benchmark.
• It does not say anything about Slate React rendering.
• It does not claim normalize is free in all cases, only that it is not the dominant cost in this specific repeated exact-path set_node workload.
• The Plate issue that triggered this investigation is already fixed on the Plate side. I am sharing this because the benchmark suggests a more general Slate-level seam.

Ask

Does this line up with your understanding of the current transform costs?

If useful, I can also put together a smaller upstream-style benchmark or try a prototype batched exact-path implementation to compare against the current path.