1

From this page on the blog of Matt Cutts, he says that rel=canonical should be a secondary choice if you can't use a 301 redirect. Is there any performance issue with using a 301 redirect instead of a rel=canonical?

Muhammad Reda
  • 26,379
  • 14
  • 93
  • 105
roybalderama
  • 1,650
  • 21
  • 38

1 Answers1

0

In my experience, the performance difference is negligible. There are more steps involved in the implementation of 301 redirects, so rel=canonical might perform slightly better. The extra steps are typically executed very quickly and should not add any noticeable delay or strain on server resources.

rel=canonical

  1. User makes a request for /non-canonical.html
  2. Server looks up canonical URL: /canonical.html
  3. Server builds a page that includes the canonical tag and sends it to the user

301 Redirect

  1. User makes a request for /non-canonical.html
  2. Server looks up canonical URL: /canonical.html
  3. Server issues a 301 redirect to the canonical URL.
  4. User's browser automatically makes a second request for /canonical.html
  5. Server discovers that this request is for a canonical URL.
  6. Server builds a page and sends it to the user.
Stephen Ostermiller
  • 23,933
  • 14
  • 88
  • 109