It really depends upon the hosting service that you use.
so if both html site and wordpress (with wp-cache) were on same exact server and everything. theoretically both would have the same performance?
although im finding that the wordpress (with wp-cache) lags behind the html on my hosting provider anybody know why?
My WordPress sits typically show 60 queries satisfied in about a half-second, so I would guess WordPress is not why my sites take longer than that to actually load.
@leejosepho I’m sorry I don’t get what you mean my queries satisfied?
i ran a speedtest through webpagetest.org on my sites one is wordpress and other is pure html..it seem the wordpress took 5 seconds longer to load..
Here is the result.
In the strictest terms, a WordPress-based site, even with caching plugins enabled, will still be slower to fulfill requests than a pure HTML-based site. Even if the caching plugin is set to fully render out cached HTML versions of the pages, you are still likely using permalinks/pretty URLs (and definitely should for SEO purposes) and so your server software will need to parse these, and it will most likely still pass at least some data through the main WordPress application before returning the cached page.
The better question, however, is does this really matter? True, Google likes faster sites more than slower sites. However, the speed differences between a well-run and cached WordPress site and an HTML-only site are not on the magnitude that matter. Consider how many large and very important sites run WordPress (Time, CNN, TechCrunch, etc.). You will gain much more by basing the site on WordPress and having the easy flexibility to expand in the future than you will lose in any small speed difference.
So I’d say go with WordPress, do turn on an caching plugin, but don’t worry about the speed difference.
@leejosepho I’m sorry I don’t get what you mean my queries satisfied?
I have this at the bottom of footer.php:
<?php echo get_num_queries(); ?> queries in <?php timer_stop(1); ?> seconds
My sites typically show about a half-second there, and/but that might or might not be directly related to the mysql_slow_queries issues I am trying to learn about at the moment.
