Search results

Different cache for different URLs is not what my question was intended for. You say you have issues with cache lifetime and the cache lifetime is different as you defined it, right?

YES!

1 GET Parameter: &product_id=41 Multiple GET Parameter: &path=20_27&product_id=41

Reducing the number of URLs is a general advice and isn't meant for to solve your problem. Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET or only 1 parameter?

Once again, if you send redirection header 302 browser will cache it, not LiteSpeed. LiteSpeed neither caches it, nor can control browser cache behaviour if this header is sent. It is not possible to send 302 header and to tell browser that he shouldn't cache it. It is inherent to the system...

Can you find out any different behaviour if a URL has more than 1 GET parameter?

Did your change your hosting to a different provider?

@julianne4987 I don't know if you already solved your problem, but as @Pong already described there is no one and only solution for your isssue. It needs a custom way to solve it. There are a huge methods to try to dectect devices. Not every one is perfect, but almost every one works different...

Which method or crawler do you use to warmup the cache? Btw. if you have additional questions, write a new post and don't modify a previous post. It will not be noticed.

I don't tell you fairy tales.... Believe in what ever you want to believe in.... ;)

Why do you try find a complicated solution, if there is a simple solution. Use rewrite rules and disable cache if a specific GET parameter is used. No need for ESI.

Google doesn't measure the speed of your page with a bot. It uses client side results from Chrome browser and such data are used to calculate the speed. Really? Yes, really! ;)

Yes really! ;) If no one requests a never wanted product in your shop, why should the cache of this URL be warmed up?! This is waste of resources. It is also not necessary to warmup the cache for bots. You don't get any advantage.

First of all: It is not really economically to try to warmup the cache for all URLs. Reduce the number to the most wanted URLs if you don't have a method (crawler) to request URLs parallel and not one by one like you do it with the current method.

The very best answer for your request: https://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/threads/please-use-the-official-wordpress-forum.16028/

You are not the only one, sorry. From a (very) far distance your solution seems to look fine, but it's only a quick and dirty solution. You overlook a lot to make your solution more practical, but nevertheless, congratulation. Improve it and you are welcome to publish upcoming releases of your...

The one and only answer for your request: https://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/threads/please-use-the-official-wordpress-forum.16028/

@hamzaleg Redirecting with 302 is no good idea, because almost every browser caches it and can't be avoided on server side. Always use only 301 redirection to avoid caching.

Sorry, I have no more information about this plugin and what else can be done to solve it. I am not the developer of this plugin. To get support for cache plugin you should open a support ticket.

Okay, other try..... If you define a new ESI block for displayNav the complete template for Nav should be excluded from being cached. That should work, but will rise up page loading time.