| Re: Windows binaries 64bit for PHP [message #177977] |
Wed, 09 May 2012 13:17  |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 5/9/2012 3:56 AM, Erwin Moller wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 4:29 AM, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:25:26 +0200, Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>
>>>> On 5/7/2012 11:37 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>> > Exactly true, but if you scale to sizes you don't need, you indeed use
>>>> > more processor time! Our disk space is definitely not the bottleneck.
>>>>
>>>> And if you repeatedly rescale the same image to the same size, you're
>>>> using even more processor time!
>>>
>>> You missed the word 'caching'. You rescale when needed, and only once.
>>
>> How is this different than pre-scaling the images?
>>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> It is different because they are *only* rescaled when not found.
>
> One approach I used:
>
> 1) Need image xyz_2012_march_nr12_300x500.jpg
> (The 300x500 is dimensions needed.)
> 2) Check if it exists.
> If not: Create it out of original (xyz_2012_march_nr12.jpg in this case)
> and store it.
>
> One can easily wrap this functionality in a function.
>
> So the difference is that you don't need a batchjob that apparently
> needs months and that will resize many images that are never needed, or
> never needed on that size.
> (I have my doubts about the alleged months, but that doesn't matter.)
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
And another waste of time. You should know what size(s) you need, and
be able to prescale your images. I don't think I've ever seen a site
which needs more than 3-4 sizes for an image, and most sites don't need
that.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]