Open · Last updated 2026-09-21

Jev latency planning

Latency planning means budgets and defaults, not quoting a launch-post multiplier as your SLO. TypeSafe says adding questions barely changes response time — vendor statement; measure your mix.

Unofficial planning notes — vendor speed claims are not your SLO, and jev.pro is not TypeSafe’s status page. Explainer: decision latency. Canonical: docs.typesafe.ai. Replicas are not Jev and not endorsed.

Budgets

• Interactive UX: set a product timeout below worst-case SDK retry.
• Privileged auto-act: if late, review — do not wait forever.
• Batch: throughput-bound by vendor 1,200 RPM / 250k TPS (can change).

What not to do

Do not put Jev on a microsecond bid path. Do not ask it to generate. Do not retry 422.

Sequencing

1. Measure p50/p95 on your filtered state and question pack, pinned.
2. Set UX timeout < SDK worst-case retry budget.
3. Put bulk on queues (vs async jobs).
4. Batch questions per official fan-out — extra questions should not mean extra serial HTTP.

Vendor “barely changes response time” is about questions on one state, not about 10,000 rows.

What “barely changes” does not cover

Vendor “barely changes response time” is one-state fan-out — not ten sequential HTTP calls, not 10,000 rows, and not an open replica. Before you take the sequencing list to production:

• Pin jev-1.13.0 (or the current versioned id). jev-latest can move mid-benchmark.
• Privileged auto-act: if late, review — do not wait forever.
• Record usage.input_tokens; unused fields still bill and, on jev-1.13, distract.

Vendor RPM / TPS figures (models page has published numbers in this class; they can change) are vendor throughput claims. Interactive UX is a timeout problem; backfill is a queue problem. Cost sits nearby: list price $0.042 / M input (output free per models page — confirm) × measured tokens. See cost planning.

Failure modes that look like “Jev is slow”

• Dump-truck state. p95 is your payload.
• Chatty client. One question per HTTP call serializes what should be one map.
• Retry storm. Unbounded SDK retries on 529 turn a blip into a user-visible hang.
• Wrong SLO source. A TypeSafe high-end multiple (they have cited large speed-ups on workflow evals) is not your p95.
• Replica benches. SemIf/OpenJev timings are not Jev and not endorsed.

Synchronous wrappers around a language judgment are still your API — vs synchronous APIs. There is no token stream; you get one structured response.

When not to use this page’s advice

Do not publish a jev.pro percentile table as if we measured your door. Do not skip the product timeout because a vendor sentence said “barely changes.” Do not plan generation latency — that is another model, after decide.

What this page does not claim

• No jev.pro percentile table.

FAQ

Streaming? No token stream. One structured response.

Why is my call slow? Huge state, many sequential HTTP calls instead of one questions map, or 429 backoff. Filter and batch.

Does adding ten questions multiply latency by ten? Vendor docs say fan-out on one state barely changes time. Measure your pack. Ten POSTs will multiply.

Can I use OpenJev p95 as a proxy? No. Different weights, different host. Not Jev.

Disclaimer

This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai. Never treat jev.pro as TypeSafe official documentation. We do not sell, issue, or proxy API keys.

Open-cluster pages are independent field-guide notes. Replicas and third-party interfaces mentioned anywhere on jev.pro are not Jev and not endorsed. Hub: Open. Siblings: cost planning, decision latency, vs synchronous apis. Canonical: https://docs.typesafe.ai.