Support » Plugins » gZip versus WP-Cache 2.0

  • Resolved pinsomniac


    Hey everyone,

    I’m finishing up some work on a project of mine and it’s the first time I’ve attempted to customize WordPress. (I’ve done light work before with b2/b2evo.) I was wondering if someone could help me figure this out.

    As far as I can tell, with gZip enabled the page comes in at around 120kb including Flash animations and such. (Savings of over 30k.) However, when compared next to a static 800kb website some visitors have told me the page is still slower.

    I’m starting to believe that this is due to WordPress being dynamic and having to render the content. Does this sound about right? If so, does anyone know which of the two (gZip or WP-Cache) would best fit my needs?

    Finally, I’ve come across someone that has managed to run both. ( Does anyone have experience with this and can comment as to how it’s worked for them?

    Sorry for the long, long post. Thanks in advance for the help!

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • WP is fast and getting faster with each release. Still, it’s got a lot of code and queries to run through and that definitely makes it slower than a static page. If you’ve added extra plugins, especially poorly optimized ones, that can also slow display down.

    The 800kb static page is kind of hard to compare because if it gets cached, or your visitors are on high speed connections, 800kb is nothing. Let a dial-up user load an uncached version of that page and you’ll see WP beats the static version rather easily 😉

    Personally I run WP-Cache on all my sites including the ones that don’t have enough visitors to require it. I find it returns the pop back to page display. The savings weren’t enough for me (they may be for you) to justify trying to get GZip and WP-Cache to work together. But when a version comes out that supports GZip I’ll definitely be turning it on.

    you can run gzip on top of wp-cache. they’re two different implements (esp if you gzip from apazhe! 😉 ). but wp-cache makes a major difference for query-heavy pages.


    Ming and david, thanks a lot for your replies. I’ve decided to stick with GZip for the meantime and attempt WP-Cache later on, as those that I have talked to have said the time to load is acceptable. It’ll be on my things to do, alongside getting the page to validate. 🙂

    Thanks again!

    also note it goes the other way around — gzipping takes SERVER resources each time it generates the page. But I believe WP-Cache can now cache gzipped versions of pages, so that the two in combination work very well. WP-Cache reduces server resources by keeping a ‘static’ copy of a given page for serving up quickly without a lot of processing overhead.

    Unfortunately WP-Cache doesn’t still support caching gzipped versions of pages but I have managed to add it.
    If you feel confident with editing PHP files by hand you can follow the instructions at:
    my blog page : Modifying WP-Cache 2.0 to generate and cache gzipped output once and serve it multiple times :
    to add this feature to the latest wp-cache version.

    *very* nice!

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • The topic ‘gZip versus WP-Cache 2.0’ is closed to new replies.