Rewrite maps vs rewrite rules

Is there any performance benefit using rewrite maps instead of individual
rules in the httpd.conf? We host a virtual site where there are about 200
rewrite rules that rewrite most URLs to point to various Cold Fusion scripts
on the same server, adding parameters and finally the [R] flag at the end.
It all works fine but I've always wondered if there was a speed/performance
penalty in not using rewrite maps instead. The httpd.conf is 180 KB in length
(there are about 70 other virtual sites as well but few of these use rewrites).

Andy

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406091941540.9149-100000@anahata.ma.ic.ac.uk>,
andy thomas <andy.thomas@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>Is there any performance benefit using rewrite maps instead of individual
>rules in the httpd.conf? We host a virtual site where there are about 200
>rewrite rules that rewrite most URLs to point to various Cold Fusion scripts
>on the same server, adding parameters and finally the [R] flag at the end.
>It all works fine but I've always wondered if there was a speed/performance
>penalty in not using rewrite maps instead. The httpd.conf is 180 KB in length
>(there are about 70 other virtual sites as well but few of these use
> rewrites).

I have often wondered this as well. I moved to maps on our site (proxies to
Zope) and we have gained other benefits:

o I make (many) fewer typing errors as I only have to specify differences
(I use to copy line from http virtual host to https virtual host and forget
to add the s or forget to change an 80 to a 443)
o I don't need to restart Apache when I change the maps - this is really useful
o The httpd.conf isn't clutterd with lots of similar lines - would now be
something like 850 (170 lines * 5 rules). Of course this could just use
includes.

There was no noticable change on the server after this change, but it runs
fairly idly anyway.

John
--
John P Baker