<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How to liven up a dull blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://povich.co.uk/blog/2007/12/how-to-liven-up-a-dull-blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://povich.co.uk/blog/2007/12/how-to-liven-up-a-dull-blog/</link>
	<description>Ramblings of Jim Whiteside, and some good old Norfolk squit.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jaydublu</title>
		<link>http://povich.co.uk/blog/2007/12/how-to-liven-up-a-dull-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>jaydublu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://povich.co.uk/blog/?p=103#comment-113</guid>
		<description>&gt; In my limited experience of optimising web sites, 99.999% of the time worth saving is in DB queries.

Totally agree and that's probably why I've never got around to trying this sort of profiling before. However we hadn't got all we wanted from db queries alone so I was trying a different tack.

It did identify another few savings that could be achieved through modifying the way we were using db queries rather than the queries themselves, but mainly it was a useful insight into where time was actually being spent.

Even if it was to confirm that most of the time is in db calls :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>> In my limited experience of optimising web sites, 99.999% of the time worth saving is in DB queries.</p>
<p>Totally agree and that&#8217;s probably why I&#8217;ve never got around to trying this sort of profiling before. However we hadn&#8217;t got all we wanted from db queries alone so I was trying a different tack.</p>
<p>It did identify another few savings that could be achieved through modifying the way we were using db queries rather than the queries themselves, but mainly it was a useful insight into where time was actually being spent.</p>
<p>Even if it was to confirm that most of the time is in db calls <img src='http://povich.co.uk/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mat</title>
		<link>http://povich.co.uk/blog/2007/12/how-to-liven-up-a-dull-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>mat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://povich.co.uk/blog/?p=103#comment-112</guid>
		<description>In my limited experience of optimising web sites, 99.999% of the time worth saving is in DB queries.  Optimising MySQL, both queries and server config, gave me orders of magnitude greater performance on moblog.  After I'd done the db stuff, I barely even touched the PHP - it runs so fast compared to MySQL that I was going to spend more time optimising than I'd save by optimising.  If that makes sense..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my limited experience of optimising web sites, 99.999% of the time worth saving is in DB queries.  Optimising MySQL, both queries and server config, gave me orders of magnitude greater performance on moblog.  After I&#8217;d done the db stuff, I barely even touched the PHP - it runs so fast compared to MySQL that I was going to spend more time optimising than I&#8217;d save by optimising.  If that makes sense..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

