|
|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 07/31/07 09:01
..oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact those 20 images require 20
>additional calls to the server, anyway.
Doesn't matter here. 20 requests are 20 requests, but it makes a big
difference if the server can deliver them statically as-is or if it has
to invoke a script handler for every single image.
>The script will already be in
>memory (if nothing else, the OS cache will have it),
Page-generating scripts can be cached as well, dependent on the
configuration of the webserver and the PHP interpreter.
>and the overhead of
>interpreting it isn't very bad at all.
So you want to tell me that a simple page-generating script wastes more
resources then a script that has to
* open a connection to a database
* query the DB (requires to analyze and optimize the query)
* transfer binary data from the DB into the script
* close the connection
* transfer the data to the webserver
?
> And it beats trying to keep
>track of thousands (or tens of thousands) of files on the disk.
Doesn't matter here. We were talking about performance and "wasting a
hell of a lot" resources. If you think interpreting all pages as PHP
wastes that many resources, but fetching images from the DB does not,
then there must be something really wrong ...
>Not nearly as much as PHP.
Depends on the server configuration I would say. SSI requires a parser/
interpreter as well. And PHP running as a server module is quite fast.
The work that has to be done by the parsers is quite the same - they
just look for special directives in the HTML code.
>But I didn't say I used SSI on all pages,
>either, did I?
Well, using SSI for a menu indicates that.
>They say URI's don't change. They don't say to interpret every page as PHP.
Again: This wasn't the point here. We were talking about leaving out
file extensions from a URL.
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|