We've already optimized Backdrop to the point that a database connection is not necessary if you're using an alternative cache-backend like Memcache. Even though the database is unnecessary except for the single query to get the cached page, we still need that database connection just for that single query.
I was experimenting with using a flat-file cache as an alternative, a basic port of https://www.drupal.org/project/filecache. The results were fairly promising running ab -c 100 -n 100 http://backdrop.local/:
Database cache:
Requests per second: 569.45 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 175.608 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.756 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 12078.02 [Kbytes/sec] received
File cache:
Requests per second: 741.53 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 134.857 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 1.349 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 15727.74 [Kbytes/sec] received
So roughly a 30% performance increase in cached page delivery. The downside is that the disk becomes littered with non-sense cache files. But as far as disk-space goes, this is no different from the page cache, which takes up just as much room, but it's hidden away in the database.
If we can test this approach on various servers and consistently get a similar increase, I think we might consider bundling a flat-file cache and using it by default for the page cache.
Recent comments
Hi Kevin I am interested assisting you developing a theme by cloning feature from existing WordPress website. Please let me know your suitable time to discuss further...
Create a theme from existing website
I've updated the Zulip link in both places I found it. No need to post again, unless you have something new to say. We'll pull together feedback from all the sources.
Backdrop CMS Core Priorities
Should we post here again, what we posted over there? Or would that unnecessarily duplicate things? The link to a Zulip thread in this initial post leads to an internal one, but there's...
Backdrop CMS Core Priorities