[wp-hackers] suggestions for the next (not immediate)release

Amit Gupta wp at igeek.info
Wed Aug 10 20:24:26 GMT 2005

well, actually I'm not saying that it should be done at the expense of 
features, & I'm certainly not saying that it should be done like 
LightPress which is loads faster but support not more than half the 
front end features, the plugins etc.
what I was driving at is having the best of both worlds. that we keep 
the features & functionality & ease of WordPress and get some more 
speed. or should I believe that the code can't be optimised(including 
SQL) to make it a bit more fast than it is currently? perhaps Matt or 
Ryan can shed some light on this.

I know speed has been one of the driving points right from the 
beginning, but I think that I read some piece from Matt sometime back 
that said something about the legacy code from b2 that can be improved a 
bit or something to that effect. I don't know if its been done already 
or not, so thought that I might as well ask about it.

I don't have any problems with WP-Cache2 so far, its serving quite well 
on 1 blog that I'm using it on. Its just that I pointed it as an example 
that a plugged in solution like that might not be as good as a built in 
might be. Just a thought, nothing more, so I maybe wrong or I maybe 
right. And I voiced some other people's thoughts on this as well, so 
they weren't my own entirely.
Amit Gupta
http://igeek.info/  ||  http://blog.igeek.info/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Deaton
  To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
  Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 6:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] suggestions for the next (not 

  Sure, tons could be done, but then where would we be? We'd be where
  lightpress is, tons faster, and tons of broken features. The WP Devs
  have kept speed and lightweight in mind from the start, and at this
  point without dropping features or filling the filesystem with files
  for every function to make sure nothing is loaded where it isn't
  needed, there isn't too much we can do for optimization.

  On WP-Cache, saving multiple cache files is intentional, and is really
  not that big of a deal. The solution is intended to save server load,
  not harddisk space. It does not create more than one copy of the cache
  file, it creates a cache file that very well may be unique to the user
  that is logged in. Some sites have welcome greetings based on
  username, the edit posts link like you said is based on username, and
  various other little features that are only available when logged in
  and are unique to each user. Caching these files too is perfectly

  On 8/9/05, Amit Gupta <wp at igeek.info> wrote:
  > I know WP-Cache2 is a server-side cacheing, but it indeed creates 
more than
  > 1 copy of a page in the cache. frankly I haven't investigated this 
  > due to lack of time, but 1 thing I can tell you is that if you are 
logged in
  > to WP, then it'll create a cache-file for you & 1 for someone who's 
  > logged in, so that you see the "edit post" links along with the post
  > titles(if your theme has them). though this dual cache-file creation 
is OK &
  > not a problem, but I just mentioned it to tell you that it indeed 
  > more than 1 copy of the cache-file!! ;)
  > I think that more can be found out by doing some basic testing, I'll 
do it
  > if I get some free time any soon. Please don't take this part of my
  > suggestion(multiple cache-file creation by WP-Cache2) entirely 
seriously as
  > I don't have any facts to back it up as I admit I haven't tested it 
up, what
  > I wrote is what some people who've tested told me. whether they are 
right or
  > wrong, I'm not 100% sure.
  > but the WP-Cache2 issue put aside, I think even Matt & Ryan would 
agree that
  > a lot can be done to tighten up the WP Code & its speed can be 
  > significantly!!
  > ------------
  > Amit Gupta
  > http://igeek.info/  ||  http://blog.igeek.info/
  > http://blog.igeek.info/wp-plugins/igsyntax-hiliter

  --Robert Deaton
  wp-hackers mailing list
  wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/attachments/20050810/762e9fb5/attachment-0001.html

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list