On 1/5/2011 8:07 PM, Alex Brollo wrote: > Browsing the html code of source pages, I found this statement into a html > comment: > > *Expensive parser function count: 0/500* > > I'd like to use this statement to evaluate "lightness" of a page, mainly > testing the expensiveness of templates into the page but: in your opinion, > given that the best would be a 0/500 value, what are limits for a good, > moderately complex, complex page, just to have a try to work about? What is > a really alarming value that needs fast fixing? > > And - wouldn't a good idea to display - just with a very small mark or > string into a corner of the page - this datum into the page, allowing a fast > feedback? >
The expensive parser function count only counts the use of a few functions when they do a DB query, PAGESINCATEGORY, PAGESIZE, and #ifexist are the only ones I know of. While a page that uses a lot of these would likely be slow, these aren't heavily used functions, and a page might be slow even if it uses zero. The other 3 limits: Preprocessor node count, Post-expand include size, and Template argument size are probably better for a measurement of complexity, though I don't know what a "typical" value for these might be. -- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
