SSR vs. SSG
Here is the English translation of the shortened version:
Following my transition to Astro, it is the perfect time to compare two key web strategies: Server-Side Rendering (SSR) vs. Static Site Generation (SSG). Both deliver pre-rendered HTML, but they do so at different stages.
SSR: Prepared on Demand
Think of the server as a chef who prepares a meal (the page) only after a customer (the user) places an order.
| How it works | Best for | Pros/Cons |
|---|---|---|
| The server fetches data from a database in real-time, renders the HTML, and sends it to the browser. | Dynamic and personalized content – user dashboards, e-commerce with live stock updates, or news sites. | Data is always fresh, but it leads to higher server load and potentially slower response times (TTFB). |
SSG: Pre-baked Content
This works like a bakery that prepares all its bread (pages) in advance during the build phase.
| How it works | Best for | Pros/Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Pages are generated into static files and stored on a CDN. When a user visits, they receive a ready-made file instantly without any server-side calculation. | Static content – blogs, documentation, or marketing sites. | Extreme speed, low hosting costs, and high security. The downside is the need to rebuild the site whenever the content changes. |
Developer’s Verdict
My decision usually depends on the need for real-time data:
- I choose SSG for maximum speed and SEO, where updating during deployment is sufficient.
- I deploy SSR when real-time personalization and data freshness are critical.
Fortunately, modern frameworks like Astro or Next.js allow for a hybrid approach. You can maintain a lightning-fast static site while using SSR only for specific routes. In my opinion, that is the ideal way to build.
Would you like me to adjust the tone to be more formal for a LinkedIn post or keep it casual?