3 ms·
Since most pages would be read far more often than they are written, you could probably get good results by 'compiling' the page to a static cache after each ed
by chad_oliver 13y ago
Since most pages would be read far more often than they are written, you could probably get good results by 'compiling' the page to a static cache after each edit.
- iagooar 13y agoI would go that way too. Static content export, put a CDN in front of it, and response times will get < 100ms, even < 80ms. I have done some experiments with static exports using dynamic frameworks like Rails, and man, it really makes a huge difference. Of course, if your content is mainly static.
- ubernostrum 13y agoI think you underestimate just how fast and furious the edits can fly on MDN.
- lmorchard 13y agoRendering page content after edits is exactly what we do. Most page views are served up from a pre-built cache, either from a straight caching HTTP proxy or from a single DB column.