[wp-hackers] caching doesn't work?

Ryan Boren ryan at boren.nu
Thu Feb 2 06:47:05 GMT 2006

Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Nathan Ollerenshaw wrote:
>> Can someone else do some ab's against 2.0.1 and compare it with 1.5  
>> running wp-cache? I'd like to know if I'm the only one seeing a  
>> difference here.
> Actually, wp-cache seems to work under 2.0.1. I had no idea.
> Requests per second:    3.42 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       292.455 [ms] (mean)
> vs
> Requests per second:    170.70 [#/sec] (mean)
> Time per request:       5.858 [ms] (mean)
> I thought WP_Object_Cache obviates the need for other caching  systems 
> ... but it doesn't seem to make a difference performance-wise  whether 
> it is on or off, though looking at what stats() gives you, it  seems to 
> be 'working'.
> Aaaany way, mucked with this too much... just hoping this is useful  for 
> someone.

The object cache can't compete with a full static caching system like 
wp-cache, nor is it meant to.  In my ab benchmarks, the persistent 
object cache offered a marginal performance improvement over running 
without persistent caching. The benchmarking was done on a couple of 
shared hosting setups.  On my personal servers, I saw slightly better 
performance, depending on the amount of disk caching.  The real 
advantage of the cache is that it is pluggable.  Thus you can use APC or 
memcached backends.  As for the default backend, on some hosts it simply 
doesn't buy you much.  It all depends.


More information about the wp-hackers mailing list