 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Klaus Ripke wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:16:43PM +0300, Markus Walther wrote:Klaus Ripke wrote:Jan notes a nice over 30 fold speedup (4900:150) compared to doing the same in PHP.That's wrong. The comparison is about simulating caching _in the scripting language_ (PHP or Lua would make no difference, I believe), or doing it _in the webserver_!Err, no, not really.
<long explanation about why PHP is worse than Lua for (Fast)CGI applications deleted>
I'm sorry, but your original post was this: "[...] So for the record http://lighttpd.net/documentation/cml.html Jan notes a nice over 30 fold speedup (4900:150) compared to doing the same in PHP."You didn't provide the context to understand your speedup claim, so I reacted and also explained things a bit. Fortunately you did provide the URL which anybody on the list can read for him/herself. Here is what Jan says in there about CML:
"CML (Cache Meta Language) wants to solves several problems:
* dynamic content needs caching to perform
* checking if the content is dirty inside of the application is
usually more expensive than sending out the cached data
* a dynamic page is usually fragmented and the fragments have
different livetimes
* the different fragements can be cached independently"
The entire document does not make any comparison Lua versus PHP -
therefore I am correct to say you're wrong, because you cannot draw such
conclusions FROM http://lighttpd.net/documentation/cml.html, and that is
what your sentence, quoted above, suggested to the Lua-L readership.
Of course, it is possible to provide independent data on Lua vs PHP such as the one you have cited from your own or others' experience and measurements - and I even found them interesting. But that is an entirely separate thread and a new topic.
Regards, Markus Walther