in reply to speed and efficiency XML/DBI vs DBI
It is almost always better to cache, unless the mechanism you've chosed for caching is itself expensive. XML is flexible, but it carries some overhead, including the additional modules you need to load at runtime to convert it to HTML. An XML cache is probably going to save substantially over going to the database each time, but you're still leaving some performance opportunities on the table.
Why not cache links in an HTML fragment?
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: speed and efficiency XML/DBI vs DBI
by primus (Scribe) on Jan 13, 2003 at 19:02 UTC | |
by dws (Chancellor) on Jan 13, 2003 at 19:19 UTC | |
by perrin (Chancellor) on Jan 13, 2003 at 19:41 UTC | |
by primus (Scribe) on Jan 14, 2003 at 17:22 UTC |