Block cache refresh value incorrect causes load problems

i can say the same.

I noticed that the block cache module didn't obey the settings i gave for the blocks and the cache was being refreshed every time i would do something on site. I turned off those settings, but the cache was being refreshed.

We had more load on server. However, in start i thought and felt that things were faster.

I guess some improvement is needed for the module.

Thanks
Dhaliwal

Exactly the same behavior here... Very strange effect. I also thought at the beginning that things became faster, but when I finished configuring the blocks it dramatically increased page loading time...

Before:
Executed 282 queries in 3194.18 milliseconds. Queries taking longer than 5 ms and queries executed more than once, are highlighted. Page execution time was 3689.21 ms.

After:
Executed 378 queries in 16084.06 milliseconds. Queries taking longer than 5 ms and queries executed more than once, are highlighted. Page execution time was 17073.93 ms.

...
Changed this issue to "bug report", "Critical", Component "Code".

Thanks you VERY MUCH for your review!
I´m monitoring the development of this module because the idea behing it is great.
Thanks!

Rosamunda

To the people having this problem, can you state more specifically what your settings were? I don't experience this on any of my sites where I use block cache so I would say this is a configuration problem and not necessarily a module specific problem.

Hi, I'm sorry. I tried it one again and everything works fine... Can't reproduce the error.

i have noticed that the module works fine.

Maybe we forget to change the cache timing. Each block cache refresh time should be set correctly for this module to increase performance.

I find it a good idea to optimize site speed.

@jjeff and @greggles:

I think I found two more or less critical bugs which may produce this strange behavior:

1. Deactivated blocks are NOT ignored, which means that the settings for

Refresh when:
A node is added/updated/deleted
A comment is added/updated/deleted
A user is added/updated/deleted
A user logs in our out

are active for every block, even if it's not active. This produces a lot of unnecessary queries on sites with a lot of blocks. Using some special modules there can be hundreds of blocks (!!)...

2. what gdtechindia wrote is not right in every case, but there is a behavior like this on my site too.

I have two blocks with the following configuration which ignore the settings as far as I understand the module:

Cache type:
YES Page specific
NO User specific

Cache lifetime:
10800

Refresh when:
NOTHING CHECKED

I expect these blocks to only refresh every 10800 sec. but they refresh on every interaction.

Is this just me, not understanding the config? Or is this a bug?

(also included in a post at http://drupal.org/node/258209#comment-860926)

in response to the last comment (#9), is there a way in the code of the module to turn this OFF by default for all those options? It seems like it could just be a hack to a module to set all defaults to FALSE instead of TRUE, but I don't know this code well enough

I'm closing this issue. Discussion on the newer posts should continue in the new issue regarding that #258209: DELETE FROM cache_block locking issues..

I think there is a bug in line 302 of blockcache.module, it should be:

       $refresh = variable_get('bc_refresh_'. $r->my_delta, array($type => false));

instead of:

       $refresh = variable_get('bc_refresh_'. $r->my_delta, array($type => $type));

This way, if nothing has been selected in "refresh when" option, the default value for 'bc_refresh_$delta' variable
will be false, and DELETE FROM..... will not be executed until the cache_lifetime value is reached.

@unknownguy, thanks for your investigation. Do you have a simplified repeatable test case that would allow someone to see the incorrect behavior?

In short, how can we test this to say whether it's ready to be committed or not?

He greggles,

I'm sorry, I don't have any test case. Currently I am not using the module, but we might use it in the future so I was reading the issue list and found this one.
Then I began to read the source code and found what seems obvious to me, but I must say that I have not test it, maybe someone else can do it, sorry.

Subscribing.