4 ms·
I've been able to get Django to serve pages in less than .2ms (cached), 1-2ms (partially uncached) or about 5ms-10ms (fully uncached) with things like materiali
by mozumder 9y ago
I've been able to get Django to serve pages in less than .2ms (cached), 1-2ms (partially uncached) or about 5ms-10ms (fully uncached) with things like materialized views, streaming HTTP, HTTP/2, and a bunch of other techniques.
Are static pages still a necessity for speed?
- alain_gilbert 9y agoI guess you did your benchmark on your localhost ? Have you tried to do the same benchmark by hosting your app on the east coast (assuming you live on the west coast) ? For me, google.com takes about 220ms to load.
- brianllamar 9y agoI guess the question is how much does running a server that is up all the time and hosting a Django project. Static is either free or pennies to post.
- davewasthere 9y agoAnd doesn't get hugged to death by HN, unlike the average wordpress installation.
- skinnymuch 9y agoIf you can use a static site generator then you also have the capability to spend the minimal time having a pretty good setup like nginx with cached WordPress. In which case both would likely survive HN.
- homarp 9y agobut the static site does not need to be upgraded every WP security alert.
- WorldMaker 9y agoIt's nice being able to outsource all of your operations needs to S3 or Surge.sh or Netlify or GitHub or really just about any CDN on the planet.
- nkristoffersen 9y agoStatic sites can live on S3 which means never worrying about your server crashing (except for that one time!). It's really a stress free way of handling sites :-)