31–40 of 87 posts
I just Googled: the OR google OR a OR badger -the -google -a
it took: 5.66 seconds.
This is probably cached now so don't try it yourself, replace badger with some other weird word. :)
Climb to the top of a mountain in the USA (or live in the countryside of a developing country), where you can only get 1 bar of 3g service. Then try to load https://cr.yp.to Ok now try to do a google search for dog food. Tell me which one executes in less than a second, and which one hangs forever
Are you comparing search with a static page load ? Just compare the google page load if you want to compare with that ?
Firstly, cr.yp.to is hosted on some really basic consumer grade hardware most likely and has to make an additional hop through Tonga of all places for DNS resolution.
Of course, the page size of cr.yp.to is very small and does not involve any other communication with other servers to deliver a request.
But Google has x million machines, x million miles of fiber, x million sticks of ram, and the page size on google also isn't terribly huge. And it's serving a cached result usually, the robot has already scraped it.
But still, because of the number of network pings that serving a single google search takes, it is extremely common on cell phones to lose service for a millisecond and completely destroy the bidirectional connection between you and Google, and your mobile browser will just sit there hanging forever until you force restart it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you comparing search with a static page load ? Just compare the google page load if you want to compare with that ?
A cold cache google page load here pushes 725kb just to render a logo and search box. To avoid fingerprinting my cache is always cold. Google search is a huge dog
It feels fast because most other sites are insanely slow. Just build a normal HTML+CSS+JS site with serverside rendering, route the assets through a CDN and voila! your site will be just as "fast" as Google.
Edit: I was too quick to judge your post. The article is indeed just about serving content, not about why their results are fast.
The article compares the speed to other websites like nike.com which have nothing to do with a search engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you comparing search with a static page load ? Just compare the google page load if you want to compare with that ?
I'm just asking you to do the test, because it was forced on me for 6 months of my life :) Firstly, cr.yp.to is hosted on some really basic consumer grade hardware most likely and has to make an additional hop through Tonga of all places for DNS resolution. Of course, the page size of cr.yp.to is very small and does not involve any other communication with other servers to deliver a request. But Google has x million…
(I ask as the owner of a .so site...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A cold cache google page load here pushes 725kb just to render a logo and search box. To avoid fingerprinting my cache is always cold. Google search is a huge dog
Considering the functionality, what would be your limit to keep google from being considered a "huge dog"?
Autocomplete function, dropdown menu JS, 10kb max
Considering this page is viewed by millions, and doesn't even contain the logic to render search results
You can make Google searches plenty slow if you Google something uncached. I just Googled: the OR google OR a OR badger -the -google -a it took: 5.66 seconds. This is probably cached now so don't try it yourself, replace badger with some other weird word. :)
Perhaps cache evicted. :D Or probably my PoP is different.
What s the deal with the CSS thing? I 've noticed that custom fonts cause considerable slowness, but CSS?
There's also the statistical impact of many round-trips: imagine a network where 1% of connections take 1 second, while 99% take 1 milisecond. If you issue > 100 request then most page loads will be slow.
It feels fast because most other sites are insanely slow. Just build a normal HTML+CSS+JS site with serverside rendering, route the assets through a CDN and voila! your site will be just as "fast" as Google.
Edit: I was too quick to judge your post. The article is indeed just about serving content, not about why their results are fast.