I’m contemplating using Zola for a personal intranet site that could potentially have tens of thousands of pages. (Let’s say, thinking ahead, 100K pages.) Has anyone tried something like this? Am I crazy?
You can try it: zola/gen.py at master · getzola/zola · GitHub
It should be ok but there are currently some performance issues with taxonomies I think which I haven’t had the time to look into so if you’re using them heavily it could be slow.
I’m pretty new here but I’m using Zola to build a site with about 140,000 pages currently. I’m not using taxnonomies, but I am using syntax highlighting, and the site builds in about 20 seconds with a pretty fast SSD and a 5900x. I also evaluated Hugo and several JS based engines and Zola was the fastest. It was about 4x faster than Hugo and 100x or more faster than the JS engines.
4 Likes
I didn’t expect the x4 with Hugo :o
I’m wondering where are the slow areas, I’ve tried setting up some flamegraph but it doesn’t play well with the latest macos, I’ll need to create a linux VM again.
Can you build your site with and without syntax highlighting to see the difference? Last time I did, it was almost 50% of the runtime. As well as the build time with current release version and current next branch.
1 Like
Sure, I’ve been meaning to do that for a while now. I’m not sure when I’ll have the time but when I do, I’ll let you know what the results are!
Hey @keats, sorry I never did those measurements. Here’s some measurements with a one-week old build from next (e42283e9). Not much difference between syntax highlighting on & off.
139,781 pages
With syntax highlighting: 34,190 ms
Without: 33,410 ms
There are hundreds of thousands of code blocks, however very few of them are tagged with syntax groups, which might explain why the timings are so close.
1 Like