Hey guys, I'm sure a few of you have been frustrated with some of the speeds when trying to save articles. On some of the larger articles, the saving was just getting unbearable.
I've fixed the bulk of the problem. The main issue related to updating all the information about how articles are linked (and whether to colour them orange or not). A second issue related to the formatting of the sections - my way of doing it was generating a lot more looping than it needed to do.
Having uploaded these changes, I tested the China page. If any page is going to save slowly that would be the one. The save processed in about 11 seconds. Although that may still seem slow, compared to what it was, that is like lightning speed. That's if it didn't crash the server while trying it. I didn't attempt a save before hand, but I would estimate it to have taken well over a minute, probably two.
Anyway, 11 seconds still feels responsive for such a large article and on the smaller articles the speed difference will mean that saving should feel quite snappy indeed.
Do let me know if you notice any issues. Main areas to look out for are links not showing orange when they should and formatting of the headings looking abnormal. I'm pretty sure it's fine though.
I just fixed a link in the China article (in section: Getting There). From the moment I clicked the submit button, it took about 17 seconds (heart counting, so give or take a couple of seconds) for the next page to appear (not completely loaded).
Yes, and that is actually good compared to what it used to be like Even on my brand new local computer with nothing else hitting the database or web server, it would take over 30 seconds to save that article. I got it down to 3 seconds locally after this fix. If you figure that it's 17 seconds under load now, you could conclude that it would have taken somewhere around 3 minutes previously. On the live site, I've had it time out on me when trying to edit the Africa article for instance. So this is still a marked improvement even if it's not ideal.
By the way, in my edit, I added "[[" to fix the broken link tag. So technically, I added two characters. But the history reported that change is "-1". How's that so? I've noticed this in quite a number of occasions, but never really bothered to report it as it's trivial. Just curious to know if it involves some very complex mathematical formula that you came up with.
Oh, and about the speed, yes, there's definitely a noticeable improvement.
I imagine there's some automatic whitespace trimming going on. Although I'd have to track that down to try and reproduce - a combination of section editing + full article editing would probably cause it.