The MU forums have moved to WordPress.org

Improve site performance? (10 posts)

  1. Farms2
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    Has anyone played arouns with this: WP-CSS-Streamliner http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/archive/2007/05/31/wpcssstreamliner_css_optimizat

    "a WordPress plugin that will greatly enhance the client-side performance of your WordPress site"

    Looks promising as an mu-plugin!

    Any thoughts?

  2. drmike
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    I haven't although I've been meaning to combine all the sitewide and plugin css'es in my installs into a single css file. javascript too. The headers for most of these blog are just a mess.

    I do try to look professional on occasion. :)

  3. SteveAtty
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    It doesn't look overly complex code - so if its no MU compatible as is I can't image its going to be major pain to make it work.

    I dropped it in on my test system - seems to break a couple of plugins but apart from that it seemed to work. The plug-ins it broke seem to be php files that deliver javascript as part of their output.

    Might want to change the location of its compressed CSS files as it places them in the plugins directory!

  4. quenting
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    sounds a bit overkill to me but well. I'm not sure I'd be willing to get the extra compexity for the performance gain this would provide. I'd rather have MU run 30 less queries per page :-p.

  5. drmike
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    You know I haven't even looked to see how many I'm doing. Haven't had any complaints.

  6. SteveAtty
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    I just did a page load on mine - only did 9 HTTP requests. Thats with Blue Zinfandel theme on a browser with nothing cached:

    GET /wp-includes/js/prototype.js?ver=1.5.1 HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/mu-plugins/share-this.php?akst_action=js HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/style.css HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/mu-plugins/share-this.php?akst_action=css HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/images/content.gif HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/images/bg.gif HTTP/1.1
    GET /blog/category/news/ HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/images/date.gif HTTP/1.1
    GET /wp-content/themes/blue-zinfandel-enhanced-20/images/spacer.gif HTTP/1.1

    with a total size of 61K

  7. quenting
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    (i was talking SQL queries)

  8. SteveAtty
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    How many queries do you think MU is doing per page?

    I was commenting on the HTTP side as that is what the original "optimizer" is about.

  9. quenting
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    yeah, i was saying that i'd rather invest time in reducing the number of sql queries than the number of http requests.
    Bandwidth is less and less an issue everyday with broadband reaching everywhere and visitors' bandwidth improving quickly. Anyway, forget about me 8-).

  10. SteveAtty
    Member
    Posted 15 years ago #

    True bandwidth isn't a problem - but reducing unnecessary calls, be they http requests, mysql requests or file requests, is always something worth looking into... unless the work done to reduce the number of calls actually makes it less efficient (by upping memory usage too much etc).

    A quick "rough" test (by resetting MySQL stats, forcing a page load and then checking the stats) shows that (excluding the calls from the stats calls) I had about 6 - one for the list of posts, one for the tag cloud, one for the calendar of posts, one for the active blogs and a couple for getting the blog information.

    To be honest, coming from my day job as an Oracle DBA on a TB sized system the quality of the query and the volume of data it returns is more important - for example using Select * and then only using a couple of fields is something I really don't like

About this Topic

  • Started 15 years ago by Farms2
  • Latest reply from SteveAtty