即时渲染标记还是存储HTML？-Rendermarkupon-the-flyorstorehtml?

I would store it in the database as Wiki markup, then hold the transformed HTML output in memory in a cache on the webserver. Whichever web technology you're using, all should support this - a basic tuple (hashtable) keyed on the url, or id, or similar.

我将它作为Wiki标记存储在数据库中,然后将转换的HTML输出保存在内存中的Web服务器的缓存中。无论你使用哪种网络技术,所有人都应该支持这一点 - 一个基本的元组(散列表),键入url,id或类似的东西。

I would store the markup and render html server side on the fly. You can use server side caching to reduce the amount of actual computation you perform and you get to keep a representation that has reasonable semantics and can be rendered to text/html/pdf if needed.

我会存储标记并动态呈现html服务器端。您可以使用服务器端缓存来减少您执行的实际计算量,并且可以保留具有合理语义的表示,并且可以根据需要呈现为text / html / pdf。

Easiest way would be to store markup and render the HTML on demand in a cache (possible on disk or in memcached onjects) with the timestamp of render. That way you can check whether you need to render again because the markup has changed or just serve the cached HTML. That is the way most Ruby on Rails apps/CMS work.

最简单的方法是使用render的时间戳存储标记并在缓存中(可能在磁盘上或在memcached onjects中)呈现HTML。这样,您可以检查是否需要再次渲染,因为标记已更改或仅提供缓存的HTML。这就是大多数Ruby on Rails应用程序/ CMS的工作方式。

I would store it in the database as RST markup, and transform to HTML as needed. Since you're probably using a front-end (e.g. JSP, PHP, Django or something else that renders a template language) the additional processing for RST won't introduce much overhead.

我将它作为RST标记存储在数据库中,并根据需要转换为HTML。由于您可能正在使用前端(例如JSP,PHP,Django或其他呈现模板语言的东西),因此对RST的额外处理不会带来太多开销。

Actually measure the actual overhead of rendering the markup into HTML before deciding to implement a complex caching mechanism.

实际上,在决定实现复杂的缓存机制之前,测量将标记呈现为HTML的实际开销。

The "(Less database space but more CPU usage)" isn't a measured fact, it's an assumption that may turn out to be not true.

“(更少的数据库空间,但更多的CPU使用率)”不是一个测量的事实,它是一个可能结果不是真的假设。