Skip to a section of this page:

Archive for the ‘Web’ Category

WordPress performance revisited

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

Stefano asked if I had numbers to back up my previous performance claims regarding WordPress performance plugins. Today I ran some tests to be able to provide those numbers.

All tests were performed:

Results

The “baseline” results represent tests without DB Cache Reloaded, Hyper Cache, or GZIP Output plugins installed. Different combinations of these plugins were then tested. Each combination was tested 10 times and the results have been averaged.

This site (irama.org) — number of seconds to render HTML of the homepage
test baseline DB Cache Reloaded Hyper Cache DB Cache Reloaded + Hyper Cache DB Cache Reloaded + GZIP Output
1 0.325 0.294 0.299 0.409 0.292
2 0.458 0.447 0.322 0.318 0.335
3 0.366 0.267 0.493 0.290 0.313
4 0.287 0.299 0.765 0.331 0.269
5 0.740 0.319 0.393 0.311 0.512
6 0.807 0.276 0.315 0.435 0.354
7 0.351 0.270 0.348 0.280 0.343
8 0.347 0.403 0.361 0.292 0.290
9 0.412 0.298 0.321 0.336 0.263
10 0.418 0.263 0.286 0.364 0.267
Avg. 0.451 0.314 0.390 0.337 0.324
A more complex client site — number of seconds to render HTML of the homepage
test baseline DB Cache Reloaded Hyper Cache DB Cache Reloaded + Hyper Cache DB Cache Reloaded + GZIP Output
1 3.116 2.477 2.198 2.287 2.693
2 2.663 0.749 2.542 0.712 0.895
3 2.820 1.008 2.382 1.143 1.221
4 2.390 0.799 2.501 0.827 0.880
5 2.304 0.758 2.581 0.939 0.939
6 3.348 0.795 2.364 1.068 1.109
7 3.150 0.866 2.248 2.483 1.172
8 3.139 0.989 2.512 1.125 0.912
9 3.115 0.789 2.667 0.939 1.092
10 2.525 0.776 2.306 2.613 0.910
Avg. 2.857 1.001 2.430 1.414 1.182

Analysis

My previous recommendation of Hyper Cache was primarily because it provides GZIP compressed HTML. Since the results for DB Cache Reloaded + Hyper Cache were not as strong as DB Cache Reloaded alone, I looked for an alternative plugin that might provide GZIP compression without as much of a page render performance cost.

I tested the GZIP Output plugin, and while it still seems to negatively impact on page render time, I believe the addition of GZIP compression — which will lower the size of the transmitted HTML file — is worth the small hit on render performance.

Note: If your web server compresses HTML output from PHP files automatically (or it can be configured to do so) then use that approach instead of using the GZIP Output plugin as it is likely to perform slightly better. The other benefit of this approach is that compression will also be applied to the HTML output of PHP files that are not part of WordPress (if you have any).

Conclusion

In terms of performance (on a shared hosting environment) disk IO is expensive, but DB access is more expensive. So while Hyper Cache alone makes a difference, DB Cache Reloaded makes a greater difference. YMMV, but in light of this data, I would update my recommendation…

For best WordPress performance, use the following plugins:

  1. DB Cache Reloaded
  2. WP Minify
  3. GZIP Output (only if your web server doesn’t GZIP HTML output from PHP automatically).

Note: If DB Cache Reloaded is not an option with your hosting provider, or you aren’t able to get it working, Hyper Cache is still a good option (remember: you won’t need GZIP Output if you have Hyper Cache installed).

Finally…

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have feedback about my methods/results, or if you have other WordPress performance tips.

WordPress performance

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Update 5 December 2009: Recommendation revised based on new data.

As promised, here’s a quick rundown of the WordPress performance plugins I’ve been using.

  • DB Cache Reloaded = Big performance wins. Especially on shared hosting.
  • Hyper Cache = Less noticeable improvement than DB Cache, but still noticeable.
  • WP Minify = Essential. Every website should combine, minify then cache static text assets (like CSS and JavaScript) for production.

Note: I have used WP Super Cache in the past and have run into problems. Apparently it doesn’t perform too well on shared hosting setups. Also, in my experience, DB Cache outperforms Super Cache every time.

I have other thoughts about web performance that I’d like to share, but not today. Let me gather my thoughts some more and get back to you.

Know of any other good WordPress performance tricks? Leave a comment.

So long MT, G’Day DH

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Well, it wasn’t easy, but I’ve done it: I have migrated my sites away from MediaTemple (MT) to DreamHost (DH).

Why the change? Performance mainly.

MediaTemple has given me decent stability and good support over the last few years. And most of all I’ll miss that gorgeous, minimal admin control panel.

But the performance has been poor at best. Even with WordPress caching plugins installed, page renders averaged 3 seconds, not including the fairly frequent spikes (of up to 30 seconds) which would occur every 5 attempts or so.

And while they seem to have more constant outages (two of which have affected me already), the overall page render performance at DreamHost has been at least twice as good (< 1 second for page render on average) as MediaTemple and far more consistent (i.e: no spikes). For those who are interested, without caching plugins installed, the difference was far more pronounced (averages of 13 seconds for MT and 2 seconds for DH).

The DreamHost control panel isn't quite as minimal or as gorgeous, but it is much better organised than others I tried, and has all the functionality I require.

I should note here that these performance results (especially the DreamHost results) are based on a limited period of testing. So I’ll keep you posted as to the service and performance longer term. But it is safe to say that the performance of my previous provider has been less-than-ideal for a long time, hence the move.

For those interested in WordPress performance, I’ll post a follow up about the plugins I’m using.

Slightly nicer URLs

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

As we know, all unique online resources should be addressable with a unique URL.

However, not all URLs were created equal. Some URLs are “nicer” than others. For example, URLs with query string parameters are often considered to belong to the “not so nice” URL category: http://example.com/?p=1234&vH=10&Session_ID=er5DKJn838JK2dfs

In general, what I consider to be “nice” or “not so nice” URLs is a lengthy topic, and I’ll only touch on part of it today. Suffice to say, that for some purposes, I believe using query string parameters is not the worst crime you can commit. In fact, in some cases, I believe they are perfectly acceptable.

Take the following URL for instance: http://example.com/books/?format=html&order=alphabetical&page=2. Although query string parameters mean this URL is a little tricky to read, at least it uses human-readable parameter keys and values. And because slashes / in URLs imply heirarchy, the only good alternative for this type of URL would be a Matrix URL, like this: http://example.com/books/;format=html;order=alphabetical;page=2.

Implementing Matrix URLs within web applications can be difficult, requiring extra server-side redirects or client-side trickery because by default, a HTML form won’t submit data formatted as a Matrix URL.

That’s why I believe query strings aren’t so bad, sometimes they really come in handy.

Repeated parameters

That said, when using checkboxes (or heaven-forbid) multi-select controls to submit data using the GET method, some server-side languages (like PHP) require that you add [] to the end of the name attribute of each control, for example: <input type="checkbox" name="items[]" value="item1" /><input type="checkbox" name="items[]" value="item2" />

For my money, this results in “not so nice” URLs, for example: http://example.com/books/?items[]=item1&items[]=item2

I know it’s a subtle difference, but I much prefer: http://example.com/books/?items=item1&items=item2

The other benefit is that your HTML wouldn’t need to contain the [] either: <input type="checkbox" name="items" value="item1" /><input type="checkbox" name="items" value="item2" />

A problem

The problem is, by default, if [] doesn’t appear in your URLs, only the last ‘items’ parameter will be accessible to PHP in the $_GET array.

A solution

I spent some time thinking about this, and decided the best thing to do would be to parse the URL myself.

/**
 * Returns query string parameters more intelligently from the URL than by using the $_GET array.
 *
 * When multiple parameters are encountered with the same name, they are stacked into an
 * array. This means all URL data can be accessed without using brackets in name attributes
 * For example, typically you would use: <input name="items[]" /> resulting in &items[]=id1&items[]=id2
 * However, using this method you can use: <input name="items" /> resulting in &items=id1&items=id2
 *
 * @author Andrew Ramsden
 * @see: http://irama.org/news/2009/10/17/slightly-nicer-urls/
 * @license GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL) <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
 *
 * @param String $url (optional) A URL to parse for query string variables. If not set, the
 *        current requested URI will be parsed.
 * @return Array An associative array with all query string variables. Multiple parameters
 *         are stacked into a nested array.
 */
function getURLVariables ($url='') {

	$url = !empty($url) ? parse_url($url) : parse_url($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']);
	$result = array();
	$queryStrParams = explode('&',$url['query']);

	foreach ($queryStrParams as $param) {
		$paramKeyVals = explode('=',$param, 2);

		if (!isset($paramKeyVals[0])) continue;

		$key = $paramKeyVals[0];
		$val = isset($paramKeyVals[1])?$paramKeyVals[1]:'';

		if (substr($key,-6) == '%5B%5D') { // support ugly urls too
			$result[substr($key,0,-6)][] = $val;
		} else if (!isset($result[$key])) { // add new param to the results array
			$result[$key] = $val;
		} else { // this param already exists, stack into an array
				if (is_array($result[$key])) {
					$result[$key][] = $val; // add to existing array
				} else {
					$result[$key] = array($result[$key], $val); // create new array
				}
		}
	}
	return $result;
}

Now instead of using: $items = $_GET['items']; you can use $items = getURLVariables()['items']; and access all the data from your slightly nicer URLs.

Feedback appreciated, let me know what you think.

Not-so-compact documentation

Monday, March 30th, 2009

I just finished fleshing out the documentation for the compact content widget.

In particular, now each presentation type (tabbed, slideshow and slider) has its own page, that outlines:

  1. How to use that presentation type.
  2. Options that can be set independently for each widget instance.
  3. Configuration that applies globally for all instances of a particular presentation type.
  4. The markup generated when a widget is initialised.

The documentation is fairly detailed, but hopefully this level of detail is useful.