XF 1.4 Remove data from BB code cache (days)

[CTXMedia]

I've just found that my xf_bb_code_parse_cache table for CycleChat has 2.3million rows and is 2.6 GiB in size (my xf_post table is 3.7million rows and 2.5GiB !!!).

I have the option Remove data from BB code cache (days) set to 30 days in my ACP and doubt very much that 2.3 million different posts have been viewed and cached within the past 30 days; I assume that after 30 days a cached item should expire from the cache and be removed?

Any idea what's going wrong and how I can fix it?

Or have I got the wrong idea about what the cache is and the type and amount of data it stores?

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Paul B]

What is the date of the first record in the table (the cache_date column).

You can use this site to convert it: http://www.onlineconversion.com/unix_time.htm

 

[CTXMedia]

What is the date of the first record in the table (the cache_date column).

Hmmm ... I never thought to look/check - having done so the oldest entry is dated: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:11:25 GMT - so it does appear to be honouring the 30 day window.

Okay, so my next question is why so many entries in a 30-day period - I'm fairly sure my members aren't reading 8 year old posts on a regular basis ... even on a slow day at the forums ?

Is it caching every request (even non-visual ones like spiders and scrapers - Google indexing the site for example)?

 

[Paul B]

Content is only stored once per post, regardless of the number of visitors who have viewed it.

The size of the table will very much depend on the post content, bb code, size of posts, etc.

Personally I disabled it a long time ago as I didn't find it offered much benefit.

 

[Mike]

Is it caching every request (even non-visual ones like spiders and scrapers - Google indexing the site for example)?

Yes. (They still need all the rendered content.)

There could also be multiple versions that are cached due to changes happening that invalidate the cache (upgrades, BB code structure changes, etc).

 

[CTXMedia]

Thanks guys - I hadn't understood how it worked and thought the table was far too large (in comparison to my posts table).

I might disable it and truncate the table to see if there is any discernible difference (I suspect I might not notice as the server is very much over-specified for what I'm using it for - but it'll be interesting to test).

Cheers,
Shaun