On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Eric Butera <eric.but...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshif...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> on 12/30/2008 01:13 AM Sancar Saran said the following:
>> >> > and please read this why
>> >> >
>> >> > http://talks.php.net/show/drupal08/0
>> > it also acts as a nice control mechanism to compare so many frameworks,
>> > trivial php, and html. really nice to see the numbers like that; so
>> > cake is
>> > horrifically slow, solar & zend are pretty fast and code igniter is like
>> > twice as fast as those.
>>
>> One thing I'd like to point out is that hello world might show the
>> overhead of putting something to screen, it doesn't touch the database
>> or any of the harder parts of a "real" app like sessions & acls.
>> Things quickly go downhill from there.
>
> yeah, i dont think ive ever seen a real world app (more specifically an app
> from one of the companies ive worked at) that didnt hit the database on even
> the most simple of pages.
>
>>
>> I saw these slides and started comparing my custom developed framework
>> vs most of the standard picks out there. At first I was really
>> disappointed with myself after seeing my apache bench numbers suck.
>> Turns out when you actually start building an app mine wasn't nearly
>> as slow as I thought. But on a simple hello world it fared pretty
>> pathetically because it ran a lot of other routines that I always use
>> in real apps, but not in hello world.
>
> clearly there are other facets to compare, like a database layer would be
> nice to compare. ci uses what they call active record, which basically
> means runtime introspection of the database. im not sure how it works in
> cake or zend, but i know symphony has an abstraction layer which theyve
> already mapped propel and doctrine to. lots of room for performance
> differences there no doubt.
>
> what i tend to think about when i see these numbers tho, is that if i were
> to ever build a company w/ a php app that was slated for growth, cake would
> be probly the last option on the list. the differences arent so bad when
> you have a tiny website, but we've got 2000 servers at photobucket for
> example. imagine how many servers you can save at that scale w/ a php
> framework that does its job and gets out of the way.
>
> i just happen to know another popular web company here in denver running on
> some hacked version of cake, and honestly, i feel sorry for them :D
>
> -nathan
>
I was following the blog tutorial on cake and here's what I got from
hitting the post/index page:
081230 12:51:55 316 Connect r...@localhost on
316 Init DB cake
316 Query SHOW TABLES FROM `cake`
316 Query DESCRIBE `posts`
316 Query SELECT `Post`.`id`, `Post`.`title`,
`Post`.`body`, `Post`.`created`, `Post`.`modified` FROM `posts` AS
`Post` WHERE 1 = 1
316 Quit
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
