> 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.
It's going to take longer to retrieve static output via CFCACHE than it would to retrieve a regular static HTML file from the web server. When you use CFCACHE, the request is still channeled through the CF server. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
