On 6/14/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Also, what exactly is so slow about the transclusion? Raw inclusion of source code from another source is not typically a particularly expensive operation, when thinking of C's #INCLUDE, for example. Is it the finding of the transcluded page by name, or what?
What part of the email I sent implies it's "so slow"?
None. However, common belief appears to be that substituting commonly used, static templates is good for performance reasons.
Or could it be theoretically possible to cache page sections rather than whole pages, to reduce the risk of having to reparse the whole page, or something?
I'm not sure that would provide a long term benefit.
No? Ok.
If there's no need, then don't do it. It has been stated time and time again that, when the development or system administration teams make policies, they are usually going to be software enforced. If you need something done for editorial reasons, *go ahead and do it.* It's your job to write the damn encyclopaedia, and it's our job to worry about the software and servers coping with it.
Need to transclude {{x}} into 30,000 pages? Do it. Utilise common sense and avoid changing it too much, sure; but don't act like you shouldn't actually make use of the software. That's a stupid attitude.
So, bots that transclude for performance reasons should be stopped? All the templates that are labelled "This template is a good candidate for subst:" should be rethought? Do you think your response represents "the developers'" opinion in general?
Steve