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

[Robert Deaton]

Well, if there's one place where WordPress could be optimized, it is
the SQL. A really nice way to optimize would be to use relationships,
but that's still a mysql 5 feature, so its not a particularly good
idea. I think one way to opitmize for speed and not space would be to
put more indecies on the SQL tables. One major improvement I think we
would see is using post_date and post_date_gmt as an index, since a
lot of the fetching is done by date.

On the PHP side, I honestly believe there is little that can be done
for efficiency to make anything noticable even on the slowest
machines. Cutting down the number of functions is the only way that
might matter, but that's been brought up before, and I doubt that its
going to happen since PHP itself handles that very well. (Comment out
all the DB calls and the PHP would fly).

On 8/10/05, Amit Gupta <wp at igeek.info> wrote:
>  
> 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/
> http://blog.igeek.info/wp-plugins/igsyntax-hiliter 
>   
>   
>   
> 
>   
>  
> ----- 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 immediate)release 
> 
> 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
> legitamate.
> 
> 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 deeply
> > 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 not
> > 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 creates
> > 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 increased
> > significantly!!
> >  
> > ------------
> > Amit Gupta
> > http://igeek.info/  ||  http://blog.igeek.info/
> > http://blog.igeek.info/wp-plugins/igsyntax-hiliter 
> 
> -- 
> --Robert Deaton
> http://somethingunpredictable.com
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> 
> 
> 


-- 
--Robert Deaton
http://somethingunpredictable.com