4 ms·
Usually running Wordpress
by nicoburns 4y ago
Usually running Wordpress
- donohoe 4y agoA bit irrelevant, no. You can botch caching on any CMS these days :)
- splatzone 4y agoI've served millions of visitors using WordPress without any issues - as long as you set up caching properly
- baisq 4y agoThe fact that you have to set up caching by hand, when the wordpress team knows how slow wordpress is, says a lot about them.
- wzy 4y ago...because getting caching right on a dynamic database-driven content management system is so easy.
- tedivm 4y agoYou're acting like setting it up by hand means you're diving into the code and doing it yourself. In truth it means just picking the caching extension that matches your needs the most, and if you don't know what that means picking the most popular one will be just fine. Personally I like this. It means that I was able to pick a caching engine that integrates directly into nginx, so that when I write a new post or edit an existing one the extension invalidates it directly in nginx. This means for the vast majority of my site the content is being served directly from nginx's memory cache. My performance is awesome. If they didn't go with an extension approach that would not have been nearly as easy to accomplish.
- capableweb 4y agoThat caching is needed just means WordPress itself can't handle it. With caching you could serve a blog for millions of hits per day from a potato.
- m-p-3 4y agoI mean, that's exactly the point of caching.
- capableweb 4y agoYeah but I mean: you can't really say that your homegrown Perl script running on a potato can handle 10k req/s if you put caching in front of it. What you're really saying in that case is that your caching solution can handle 10k req/s, which is fine, but besides the point. Same with Wordpress. Wordpress itself cannot handle that amount of load, which is why you put caching in front of it. Users won't care, I give you that. But if you're talking about how much load a specific software can manage, including putting caching in front of it kind of defeats the point of the conversation.
- tedivm 4y agoThere's a difference between full page caching like you're describing and in application caching. Most Wordpress caching extensions work internal to the application, not externally by putting something in front of it. With one of the popular extensions you can reduce database calls to basically zero without putting a http cache in front of the application.
- cnity 4y agoI think the implicit point made by GP is to question what the purpose of database calls are to deliver a blog post. If the post were just some HTML and CSS, it should be able to be served with very little processing power. It's unlikely that dynamic template population is needed for blog posts.
- bornfreddy 4y ago> If the post were just some HTML and CSS, it should be able to be served with very little processing power. Actually, with caching - they are. The database is there so that the person writing the blog post doesn't need to be very technical, or maybe so that they don't need to make a special effort just to update some post. In the end everything is about convenience.
- nicoburns 4y agoWell sure. But it's still the case that most people with blogs that can't handle traffic spikes are running WordPress (generally without caching).