Should there be any performance differences between viewing a page that uses CFCACHE vs. viewing the same page output in a static HTML file created manually?
I thought NOT, but some tests I've run suggest otherwise. For example, dynamic cfm pages that consistently require 10 seconds for full display will display in 8.5 seconds when using CFCACHE. But when I manually save that output to an HTML file and view that, the page is fully displayed in 5 or 6 seconds. Changing my manual static file to a .cfm extension adds a second or so, but it's still faster than using CFCACHE. I'm basing my tests on repeated hits of the Refresh button, so I don't think it's a browser cache issue... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
