On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:27, Dave Johnson wrote: > On Nov 4, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > > Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use > > those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged > > in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone. > > I really like the edit links on the page and the especially the > editor-menu which appears when I'm logged in. I'd hate to lose that > feature and I don't think it's hard to have a special cache for > logged-in user pages (since we do that now) or just leave them out of > the cache.
we don't actually have a special cache for logged-in user pages, but we be able to set things up to leave them out of the cache. > > I don' think logged-in-user-pages filling up the cache is that big of > an issue at all. They only get cache if the user browses his own blog, > generally users don't do that very often and when then do they don't > generally visit every page. So, they don't double the cache as you > suggest. true, i suppose the example was a bit overdramatic, but it still applies. as the number of bloggers on a site grows, the number of logged-in user pages in the cache will grow. That utilizes valuable cache space for pages which will likely get very few hits. > > I do think there are things we can do to limit the number of pages that > we render for each blog. For example, we render a unique page view for > every day (via the the /page/user/YYYYMMDD URLs) and for every entry > (when viewed by permalink). If we could find a better way to structure > our views of past posts, we could save lots of memory and bandwidth. yes. i've disected our caching system pretty thoroughly and there are some obvious places where we can make improvements. I've got a proposal almost finished which I'll be sending out soon. -- Allen > > - Dave >
