[wp-hackers] 2.next - faster

David Chait davebytes at comcast.net
Wed Feb 8 14:22:01 GMT 2006

Well, WP-Cache fixed some bugs in Staticize certainly, and makes the cache 
accessible via a plugin interface and admin panel.  But the basic approach 
is the same.

As for caching to the DB, that's something that would almost need to be 
profiled on a system to suggest whether it would be faster or slower.  Is 
sql on the same box as apache?  In single box, is it memory-heavy so sql can 
cache things?  In either case, is sql bogged down with queries?  Is 
drive-access really fast (optimized for read-speed) for loading up cached 
page off disk vs across network?  Etc., etc.

Agreed, it could probably use further improvement, but even where it stands 
today it solves a lot of problems, and only creates a few. :)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sebastian Herp" <newsletter at scytheman.net>
To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] 2.next - faster

| David Chait wrote:
| > Have you tried WP-Cache on your system?  Most of what you discuss would 
| > solved with WP-Cache built-in to WP in the future (on an option, of 
| >
| >
| Yes, I tried WP-Cache. It does not speed up things versus Staticize
| Reloaded and even the later one modified to store the files in the
| database itself is fast enough (around 80 ms for every request). And
| yes, it is the ideal solution with some restrictions. Nothing some
| modifications shouldn't fix ;-) 

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list