Python blogging software
Sun Sep 17 17:02:45 CEST 2006
Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> writes:
> > Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a kludgy
> > workaround for lousy performance of the framework itself. A fast
> > framework should not need caching, except maybe caching gzip output
> > for large blocks of contiguous text.
> The value of caching is mostly for heavy-duty applications built on
> top of the framework. The framework has no control over how much
> computation the application does, but can offer savings by
> "short-circuiting" the repeated execution of lengthy page computations
> in application code.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "lousy performance of the
framework itself" when I should have included the application. If the
application's page computations are so lengthy, then they too need
We've got a situation where some big sites (Slashdot, Wikipedia) have
a lot of cached static pages for non-logged-in users (they all see the
same thing), but any user who is logged in sees a version customized
by their preferences, that's usually not cached. So there's a
perverse incentive to not log in, since you see the static page
I'd really like to get hold of a big active blog or BBS server to
profile it. It's been puzzling me for years what makes them so slow.
They just paste user-contributed content together with HTML from
templates, so you'd think it shouldn't be too complicated.
More information about the Python-list