[wp-hackers] 2.next - faster
davebytes at comcast.net
Mon Feb 6 21:39:26 GMT 2006
As I mentioned in the earlier 2.next, maybe it is time to 'adopt' wp-cache
(which is an offshoot of matt's own Staticize -- correct me if I'm recalling
wrongly...) back into the core? Even as a plugin, it'd be great. If
actually integrated, it should be an option (like the object cache should
Stats have shown wp-cache to be one of the biggest wins aside from purely
static-page generation (or lightpress).
Any testing of ways to improve the speed of the non-cached system on general
hosting (shared) would be good. For instance, maybe one particular query
being cached would make an impact, or adding a few keys here or there?
Also, discussion/testing of 'optional environments' would be good,
especially if we can find hosts willing to 'play ball with us'. I'm
thinking specifically thttpd and/or lighttpd, which have proven speed over
apache (and big, major sites use one of the two in many cases for static
content, but they've proven useful for php as well...).
----- Original Message -----
From: "David House" <dmhouse at gmail.com>
To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] 2.next - faster
On 06/02/06, Scott johnson <fuzzygroup at gmail.com> wrote:
> Faster, imho, involves tradeoffs at this point. My gut just on web apps is
> that faster means "look hard at the SQL". For example I learned TONS
> mysql scaling at Feedster that I think is applicable but it starts to get
> specialized like memcache support, write versus read servers, etc.,
> seriously playing with your table structure, etc.
Most of the time taken for WordPress to load is down to the long time
needed for PHP to parse the thousands of lines of code, IIRC.
-David House, dmhouse at gmail.com, http://xmouse.ithium.net
wp-hackers mailing list
wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers