FastCGI Cache vs. WP Super Cache – or using both the caching solutions together?
Webmasters always ask me – what has the better caching solution, FastCGI Cache or WP Super Cache, and some of them even come with even unusual questions like can they use both together?
FastCGI Cache is faster than WP Super Cache. It is because FastCGI Cache uses compiled bindings that are fast and routes traffic directly to the cache. While WP Super Cache uses .htaccess and PHP itself to route the visitor to the cache (files). So before the visitors get to a hit on a cached page, WP Super Cache has to perform some logic both in the form of .htaccess (or nginx rewrites) and PHP itself (all WP Plugins must use PHP in order to function).
On top of that FastCGI Cache is directly served from memory. While WP Super Cache is stored in the drives, and accessing them means there would be very small but additional latency.
Here is small illustration of both the caching solutions:
- FastCGI Cache: Nginx → FastCGI → File.
- WP Super Cache: Nginx → FastCGI → PHP → File.
Can we use both caching solutions together? Will there be any improvements? Yes, you can use both, and it will work, but forget about any further improvements as the page will take the same or more time to get ready.
In conclusion, a PHP-based caching solution is suitable for small blogs and websites, while a server-side caching solution is a viable option for large blogs and websites which has thousands of engaging posts.