4 ms·
I appreciate the info! I'm really curious to see where using AMP as a proxy speeds up the page, versus applying similar optimizations on origin server? If it'
by e1ven 9y ago
I appreciate the info!
I'm really curious to see where using AMP as a proxy speeds up the page, versus applying similar optimizations on origin server?
If it's a cached page (served from any normal CDN), and crafted with similar optimizations [1] wouldn't it be just as fast, without needing to do the URL redirection?
Even if it were difficult to convince developers to implement the changes, couldn't many of the optimizations could be rolled into a module like PageSpeed [2]?
[1] - https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-is-fast-7d2ff1f48597 https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-is-fast-7d2ff1f48597
[2] - https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/module/ https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/module/
Edit - Reformatted links; I forgot HN doesn't use Markdown.
- cramforce 9y agoOur latest numbers show that the average speed improvement of the AMP cache is roughly 75%. I'm a bit shocked by that myself. But that is where it stands. Getting similar performance out of on-origin serving is a priority for us, but we aren't there yet. One challenge is to give it the same scale as the AMP cache.
- nwellnhof 9y agoCould you at least make it possible for websites to opt out of the AMP cache? Last time I checked, publishing an AMP page grants Google (and everyone else) an implicit license to incorporate your content on their own web properties. The AMP FAQ say: "Should you desire not to have your document cached, one option is to remove the amp attribute from the HTML tag. This makes the document technically invalid AMP, while not impacting the functionality of the document." But from what I understand, this will also impact the presentation and ranking in search results.