3

I've been developing CMS and now EE websites for so long I forget how fast a static website it. Had to save a CMS website as static earlier. Speeds went from approx. 200 to 300ms to 30ms.

My own site I get approx. 150ms speeds with EE caching.

I installed CE Cache and now get approx. 50 to 100ms speeds, so it does help.

My own site as a static site is approx. 30ms.

Speed is extremely important! So important I am wondering whether to ditch EE and go for static. But I am not giving up! Surely there are ways to make a EE site comparable to static.

I then found Solspace's "Static Page Caching". I have not tried this as I have to purchase it and already just purchased CE Cache.

So... I wondered if anyone has any experience with the two, if one is faster than the other?

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    CE Cache does static page caching as well, see the docs: causingeffect.com/software/expressionengine/ce-cache/user-guide/…
    – Jeremy Gimbel
    Nov 2, 2013 at 0:59
  • Yes that's what I'm using. But it's not as fast as real static page. I'm getting 50ms to 100ms with CE Cache static but the static equivalent is 30ms.
    – Laurence Cope
    Nov 2, 2013 at 9:12
  • Stash also does static caching for free now: github.com/croxton/Stash - however busting the caches will require Mustash (or your own custom extension).
    – James Smith
    Nov 2, 2013 at 13:20
  • 3
    Also, while speed is undoubtedly critical and each layer of the technology stack is important, I don't think you should spend too much time worrying about the difference between 30ms and 100ms on the back end - the 70ms difference will be utterly unnoticeable to most humans and you're better off optimising the front end.
    – James Smith
    Nov 2, 2013 at 13:34
  • We offer a service to speed up peoples websites so would like to speed it up as much as we can.
    – Laurence Cope
    Nov 3, 2013 at 8:53

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I have run into this issue before and I was in the same boat. And "Static Page Caching" didn't do it for me, CE Cache did. I learned that I had to make sure I was really caching the site correctly, such as the right areas and embeds. Also I made sure that I wrote my markup in the best way I could to reduce queries.

I hope this helps, I have always found that before I even start to cache any page, I really make sure my markup reduces the amount of queries.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.