>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Camilo Sperberg
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>>
>>> On 11 mei 2012, at 07:09, "Lars Nielsen" wrote:
>>>
>
> On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Camilo Sperberg
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>
>> On 11 mei 2012, at 07:09, "Lars Nielsen" wrote:
>>
>>>
On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Camilo Sperberg
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>
>> On 11 mei 2012, at 07:09, "Lars Nielsen" wrote:
>>
>>>
On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta
How is PHP running, fast-cgi, sapi, etc..?
Is there anything in the error_log for apache? Could be an issue with
prefork/worker.
Thanks,
Mike Mackintosh
PHP, the drug of choice - www.highonphp.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Camilo Sperberg wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>
> On 11 mei 2012, at 07:09, "Lars Nielsen" wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>>>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use o
Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
On 11 mei 2012, at 07:09, "Lars Nielsen" wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>>
>>>
Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>
> On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>>
>>> On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>>>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set
On 10 mei 2012, at 23:26, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>
>> On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
Hi there,
I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set up on a de
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>>
>> On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
Hi there,
I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set up on a d
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
>
> On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set up on a dedicated server but I have a
>>> strange issue.
>>>
>>> I have mad
Sent from my iPhone 5 Beta [Confidential use only]
On 10 mei 2012, at 17:40, Matijn Woudt wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set up on a dedicated server but I have a
>> strange issue.
>>
>> I have made a Drupal 7 s
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Lars Nielsen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have apache-2.22/php 5.3.10 set up on a dedicated server but I have a
> strange issue.
>
> I have made a Drupal 7 site with a mysql db.
>
> If I stress-test the site with : ab -c 1 -n 150 http://sitename/ it works
> fine.
> If
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Vitalii Demianets
wrote:
> On Friday 17 June 2011 04:50:00 Daevid Vincent wrote:
>> > I've seen too many people over the years try and rally against common
>> > sense practices like using prepared statements for perhaps a marginal
>> > gain of performance on one pa
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 15:35, Shiplu wrote:
> ===
> Recently I my this php-general doesn't accept my mail for some
> reason. So I send it again from anther email
>
APseudoUtopia wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> I have a php cli script that listens on a UDP socket and, when data is
> sent to the socket, the script inserts it into a database. I'm using
> the real BSD socket functions, not fsock.
>
> The script runs socket_create(), then socket_bind(). Then it starts a
I have a php cli script that listens on a UDP socket and, when data is
[8<]
>> So I think the the MSG_WAITALL is causing it to block until incoming
>> data connection is closed (it never reaches the 512 byte mark before
[8<]
> your "clients" are not maintaining an open connection to the socket
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM, APseudoUtopia wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:32 PM, APseudoUtopia
>> wrote:
>>> Hey list,
>>>
>>> I have a php cli script that listens on a UDP socket and, when data is
>>> sent to the socket, the scrip
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:32 PM, APseudoUtopia
> wrote:
>> Hey list,
>>
>> I have a php cli script that listens on a UDP socket and, when data is
>> sent to the socket, the script inserts it into a database. I'm using
>> the real BSD socket
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:32 PM, APseudoUtopia wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> I have a php cli script that listens on a UDP socket and, when data is
> sent to the socket, the script inserts it into a database. I'm using
> the real BSD socket functions, not fsock.
>
> The script runs socket_create(), then
Gryffyn wrote:
I did a search and didn't find anything really astounding sounding, so I
wanted to ask for some "live" recommendations from the crowd here.
I was wondering if anyone had used FirePHP with Firebug or could recommend a
good profiling method for figuring out where the slow parts of
On 17 April 2008 11:57, Bojan Tesanovic advised:
> in PHP5 by default Objects are passed by reference
Please stop repeating this -- erm -- inexactitude.
In PHP5, objects are passed around by their handle, *not* as a
reference. Most of the time, this has the same effect, as you are
addressing the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Eric Butera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Bojan Tesanovic <[
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Eric Butera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Bojan Tesanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > in PHP5 by default Objects are passed by refere
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Nathan Nobbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Bojan Tesanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > in PHP5 by default Objects are passed by reference and as you can see at
> > this graph passing array by reference in PHP5 is slower
>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Bojan Tesanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> in PHP5 by default Objects are passed by reference and as you can see at
> this graph passing array by reference in PHP5 is slower
> http://nathan.moxune.com/arrayVsArrayIteratorReport.php
wow, thats hilarious, thats m
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If it's faster, it's faster so that would suggest a performance gain...
> but as many will tell you, and you most likely already know... is the
> gain worth the effort? BTW, rote replacement of references like that,
> m
On Apr 17, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
all,
i have heard from various sources that using the & in php can at
times be
costly, and therefore, it should not be used when it is not
needed. for
example, passing an array by reference because you think youre
passing the
actual array
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 23:37 -0400, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> all,
>
> i have heard from various sources that using the & in php can at times be
> costly, and therefore, it should not be used when it is not needed. for
> example, passing an array by reference because you think youre passing the
> act
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Adriano Manocchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoa. No need to get snippy. I was being sincere in my gratitude for
> the suggestions. If nothing else, I'm sure I'll be making more use of
> Xdebug in the future.
I'm not being snippy at all. I was admitting m
Adriano Manocchia wrote:
Whoa. No need to get snippy. I was being sincere in my gratitude for the
suggestions. If nothing else, I'm sure I'll be making more use of Xdebug
in the future.
On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Adriano Manocchia wrote:
Well, I just spent more time
Doh, sorry... I was jokingly replying to:
"I was going to suggest that it was most likely an Apache or DNS
issue as opposed to PHP, but after I realized I missed that your "php
tests were run on a single-line PHP script that simply echoed 'hi' so
it couldn't get much simpler than that," I figured
Whoa. No need to get snippy. I was being sincere in my gratitude for
the suggestions. If nothing else, I'm sure I'll be making more use of
Xdebug in the future.
On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Adriano Manocchia wrote:
Well, I just spent more time messing with httpd's con
Adriano Manocchia wrote:
> Well, I just spent more time messing with httpd's conf and it the
> problem seems to have resolved itself by turning off hostname lookups. I
> know there's overhead associated with it, but I don't really understand
> why it only affected PHP, and so drastically. At any ra
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Adriano Manocchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I just spent more time messing with httpd's conf and it the
> problem seems to have resolved itself by turning off hostname lookups.
> I know there's overhead associated with it, but I don't really
> understand
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Adriano Manocchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I just went through about 10 minutes' worth of cachegrinds,
> including several httperf tests on that empty php file (which had the
> usual poor results). According to the cachegrind files, nothing
> (including t
Well, I just spent more time messing with httpd's conf and it the
problem seems to have resolved itself by turning off hostname lookups.
I know there's overhead associated with it, but I don't really
understand why it only affected PHP, and so drastically. At any rate,
I guess this issue is
OK. I just went through about 10 minutes' worth of cachegrinds,
including several httperf tests on that empty php file (which had the
usual poor results). According to the cachegrind files, nothing
(including the other active web pages) took more than 15ms and the
empty php file never excee
I'm trying to get it working but it doesn't seem to want to write the
profile info at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this
just show problems within actual code? If the problem is occurring on
a PHP file with no PHP in it whatsoever, it seems to fall outside the
scope of w
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Adriano Manocchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been chasing what I think is the same performance issue for about
> a year and it's driving me batty. First off, the server is a dual core
> 2.8 P4 with 2G RAM running RHEL5 hosted at The Planet and
I know my original post was long-winded, but I did mention that my php
tests were run on a single-line PHP script that simply echoed "hi" so
it couldn't get much simpler than that. But for thoroughness' sake,
I've run the tests against a test file with a php extension with no
PHP code at al
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Adriano Manocchia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been chasing what I think is the same performance issue for about
> a year and it's driving me batty. First off, the server is a dual core
> 2.8 P4 with 2G RAM running RHEL5 hosted at The Planet and
apache benchmark, aka "ab" comes with apache and lets you hit your
server as many times as you want.
Also see wget and valgrind/callgrind
For Windows users, there's something called SuperSmack or some equally
silly name... :-)
On Mon, January 21, 2008 3:50 am, Jochem Maas wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> I
On Jan 21, 2008 5:50 AM, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Rademaker schreef:
> > Jochem Maas wrote:
> >> Ron Rademaker schreef:
> >>> Hi Jochem,
> >>>
> >>> Apache comes with an nice ab tool which stands for apache
> >>> benchmarking. You can use this to benchmark stuff like concurrent
Ron Rademaker schreef:
Jochem Maas wrote:
Ron Rademaker schreef:
Hi Jochem,
Apache comes with an nice ab tool which stands for apache
benchmarking. You can use this to benchmark stuff like concurrent
requests.
indeed, I know ab, but it doesn't allow for a very realistic request
'spread'
Jochem Maas wrote:
Ron Rademaker schreef:
Hi Jochem,
Apache comes with an nice ab tool which stands for apache
benchmarking. You can use this to benchmark stuff like concurrent
requests.
indeed, I know ab, but it doesn't allow for a very realistic request
'spread'
- at least as far as I k
Ron Rademaker schreef:
Hi Jochem,
Apache comes with an nice ab tool which stands for apache benchmarking.
You can use this to benchmark stuff like concurrent requests.
indeed, I know ab, but it doesn't allow for a very realistic request 'spread'
- at least as far as I know.
I was hoping for
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 10:50 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Does anyone have any tips, urls, advice as to how to start
> going about creating something like a 'test suite' for testing
> high load performance of a website?
>
I went through a similar headache recently, and looked at a whole whack
of t
On Nov 24, 2007 2:32 AM, Jon Westcot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> For those who've been following the saga, I'm working on an application
> that needs to load
> a data file consisting of approximately 29,000 to 35,000 records in it (and
> not short ones,
> either) into several tab
Eventually, I wind up with a query similar to:
UPDATE table_01 SET field_a = 'New value here', updated=CURDATE() WHERE
primary_key=12345
Even though you've solved it one way to work out the problem here would
be to change it to a select query (unfortunately mysql can't explain
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 04:03 -0700, Jon Westcot wrote:
>
> Moral of the story? Two, really. First, ensure you always reference
> values in the way most appropriate for their type. Second, don't make your
> idiocy public by asking stupid questions on a public forum. What's the
> quote (prob
Could there be some performance gain by uploading the data to another table and
then update / insert via sql?
bastien
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:03:53 -0700
> Subject: Re: [PHP]
Hi Rob, et al.:
- Original Message -
From: "Andrés Robinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jon Westcot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > :: gigantic snip here::
> >
> > So, long story short (oops -- too late!), what's the concensus
> > among the learned as
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Westcot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 4:32 AM
> To: PHP General
> Subject: [PHP] Performance question for table updating
>
> Hi all:
>
> For those who've been following the saga, I'm working on an
> application that need
Merlin wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am doing some image cropping of about 40.000 files with php.
If you're worried about performance, maybe why not use mogrify from
ImageMagick?
/Per Jessen, Zürich
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.
Merlin wrote:
Hi there,
I am doing some image cropping of about 40.000 files with php.
To do this I wrote a PHP file that does what I want and I did disable
the timeout so I can call it via webbrowser and fire the script.
There are two down sides I see:
1. One image takes about 0.25 s, so the w
Hi,
I had lots of loop in my code. My gain was %4 to %6 and I say "may gain
another %10". Of course your millage was different than me
Regards
Sancar
On Saturday 21 July 2007 01:03:45 Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Fri, July 20, 2007 4:16 am, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > Sancar Saran wrote:
> >> Anoth
On Fri, July 20, 2007 4:16 am, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Sancar Saran wrote:
>> Another simple performance tip.
>>
>> Most of for examples of php look like this
>> for($x=0;$x>
>> This is bad. In every cycle you call sizeof
>>
>> this was good
>> $intSize = sizeof($arrSometing);
>> for($x=0;$x<$intSiz
Sancar Saran wrote:
> Another simple performance tip.
>
> Most of for examples of php look like this
> for($x=0;$x
> This is bad. In every cycle you call sizeof
>
> this was good
> $intSize = sizeof($arrSometing);
> for($x=0;$x<$intSize;$x++)
>
> if u use.
> for($x=0;$x<$intSiz;++$x). You may g
Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 4/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> recently we tested upgrading our systems from:
>>apache 2.0.55
>>php 5.1.6
>>eacclerator 0.9.5
>> to:
>>apache 2.2.3
>>php 5.2.0
>>eaccelerator 0.9.5
On 4/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello everyone,
recently we tested upgrading our systems from:
apache 2.0.55
php 5.1.6
eacclerator 0.9.5
to:
apache 2.2.3
php 5.2.0
eaccelerator 0.9.5
but we always get worse performance than befo
On 3/27/07, Travis Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jake Gardner wrote:
> He said if you run the /script/ itself 1000 times, not a loop with 1000
> iterations. This is quite possible; I am fairly certain there are
> websites
> out there that get accessed well over 1000 times a minute, yes?
>
>
Jake Gardner wrote:
> He said if you run the /script/ itself 1000 times, not a loop with 1000
> iterations. This is quite possible; I am fairly certain there are
> websites
> out there that get accessed well over 1000 times a minute, yes?
>
> So every minute, that website is saving a total of 2.6
He said if you run the /script/ itself 1000 times, not a loop with 1000
iterations. This is quite possible; I am fairly certain there are websites
out there that get accessed well over 1000 times a minute, yes?
So every minute, that website is saving a total of 2.6 seconds to do...
whatever it is
On Sat, March 24, 2007 4:52 am, Tijnema ! wrote:
>> That means that at 1000 iterations, you are "saving" how much time?
>>
>> .00026 seconds?
>> .4 seconds?
>>
>> Puhleaze.
>
> Well, if you execute this script 1000 times, you would get a
> difference of 2.6 seconds?
> But if every microseconds
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:38 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 2:24 PM -0400 3/24/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:21 -0400, tedd wrote:
> >> At 7:47 PM -0500 3/23/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
> >> >Folks:
> >> >
> >> >How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough iterations
At 2:24 PM -0400 3/24/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:21 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 7:47 PM -0500 3/23/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
>Folks:
>
>How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough iterations
>that this is even significant?
>
>Write the code that makes sens
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:21 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 7:47 PM -0500 3/23/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
> >Folks:
> >
> >How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough iterations
> >that this is even significant?
> >
> >Write the code that makes sense.
> >
> >Optimize the biggest bottleneck unt
At 7:47 PM -0500 3/23/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
Folks:
How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough iterations
that this is even significant?
Write the code that makes sense.
Optimize the biggest bottleneck until performance is acceptable.
Absolutely -- the time we take discussi
Hi,
I'm using so much FOR loops in my code, after seeing discussion I try to test.
My findigs it was giving %2 to %10 percent performance boost.
So ?
My recent template addon to this code cost me around %5 to %10 percent of
total page process..
I think It was nice trade off.
Thank you guys.
On 3/24/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, March 23, 2007 7:54 pm, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Folks:
>>
>> How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough
>> iterations
>> that this is even significant?
>>
>> Write the c
On Fri, March 23, 2007 7:54 pm, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Folks:
>>
>> How often do you use a loop of any kind in PHP with enough
>> iterations
>> that this is even significant?
>>
>> Write the code that makes sense.
>>
>> Optimize the biggest bottle
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 01:54 +0100, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, March 22, 2007 5:14 pm, Tijnema ! wrote:
> > > On 3/22/07, Jon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Your test isn't exactly fair. The for loop has no statements in it,
> > >>
On 3/24/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, March 22, 2007 5:14 pm, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Jon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your test isn't exactly fair. The for loop has no statements in it,
>> and
>> the while loop has one. Your tests show while as approx 7% f
On Thu, March 22, 2007 5:14 pm, Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Jon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your test isn't exactly fair. The for loop has no statements in it,
>> and
>> the while loop has one. Your tests show while as approx 7% faster,
>> while
>> a modified test shows an approximate
On 3/23/07, Mario Guenterberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:24:45AM -0500, Travis Doherty wrote:
> After multiple runs I see that the for pre-increment loop is fastest.
> Note that the while loop with a post-increment runs once more than with
> a pre-increment.
>
> Everyti
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 12:24:45AM -0500, Travis Doherty wrote:
> After multiple runs I see that the for pre-increment loop is fastest.
> Note that the while loop with a post-increment runs once more than with
> a pre-increment.
>
> Everytime I run, the results are *very* different, though still
Tijnema ! wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Jon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Your test isn't exactly fair. The for loop has no statements in it, and
>> the while loop has one. Your tests show while as approx 7% faster, while
>> a modified test shows an approximate 30% speed improvement:
>>
>> Do th
On 3/22/07, Jon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your test isn't exactly fair. The for loop has no statements in it, and
the while loop has one. Your tests show while as approx 7% faster, while
a modified test shows an approximate 30% speed improvement:
Do this:
for ($i=0;$i<1000;$i++) {
On 3/22/07, Jake McHenry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
does this help?
http://www.php.lt/benchmark/phpbench.php
Jake
Well, there wasn't a test between For and While, so i did it myself,
and i'm quite confused about the result.
I let PHP count from 0 to 1 on my 1ghz AMD Athlon.
While did
does this help?
http://www.php.lt/benchmark/phpbench.php
Jake
> -Original Message-
> From: Tijnema ! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:38 PM
> To: PHP
> Subject: [PHP] Performance: While or For loop
>
> Hi,
>
> Does somebody has benchmarks of what is fast
At 3:47 PM -0500 4/21/06, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Fri, April 21, 2006 7:52 am, Jochem Maas wrote:
Andy wrote:
Now, one of this file can contain more than 2000 defines and we make
a calculation that we will reach 8000 in 2 years.
Seems to me you could extend your testing to generate 8000 co
On Fri, April 21, 2006 7:52 am, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>> Now, one of this file can contain more than 2000 defines and we make
>> a calculation that we will reach 8000 in 2 years.
Seems to me you could extend your testing to generate 8000 constants
in a file pretty easily, and just bench
ent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP] performance criteria on DEFINE()
Andy wrote:
Hi, We have a big multilanguage project. For a while we used gettext to
translate the pages, but we gave up on this because of many problems. Out
solution is to create a file for each lan
Andy wrote:
Hi,
We have a big multilanguage project. For a while we used gettext to translate the pages, but we gave up on this because of many problems.
Out solution is to create a file for each language which includes the "label" definitions.
for ex:
define("LABEL1", "label 1");
define(
Hi,
Any time you fetch results from a database it take up memory, you can't
do much about that (you can limit the effect by using 'limit' in
conjunction with paging and only getting the columns you need etc but
that's about it).
If you're using a standard id/parentid type approach you're st
Miles Thompson wrote:
At 12:02 PM 2/1/2006, Mathieu Dumoulin wrote:
This is more a "How would you do it" than a "How can i do it" question.
Didn't have time to try it, but i want to know how mysql_seek_row acts
with large result sets.
For example im thinking of building a node tree applicat
At 12:02 PM 2/1/2006, Mathieu Dumoulin wrote:
This is more a "How would you do it" than a "How can i do it" question.
Didn't have time to try it, but i want to know how mysql_seek_row acts
with large result sets.
For example im thinking of building a node tree application that can have
dual
This is more a "How would you do it" than a "How can i do it" question.
Didn't have time to try it, but i want to know how mysql_seek_row
acts with large result sets.
For example im thinking of building a node tree application that can
have dual direction links to nodes attached to different
B trees or binary trees or hash tables or wathever sort algo or memory
organisation could be just great if i'd put all my data in the page and
tried or needed to sort it, but i can't do that and don't really need to.
I'm actually searching for a way to load a ton of data from mysql but
avoidin
I think this might interest you:
http://www.bluerwhite.org/btree/
then again it may make your ears bleed (because of the Maths :-).
Mathieu Dumoulin wrote:
This is more a "How would you do it" than a "How can i do it" question.
Didn't have time to try it, but i want to know how mysql_seek_row
Rodolfo Andrade wrote:
Hi all!
I would like to know if comments in the code affects the performance. I know
that comments are ignored by the interpreter, but it does increase the file
size, so I was thinking about a possible performance hit for highly
commented files.
given the fact that you a
$sql = "SELECT u.*, s.*, p.*
FROM URL u, session s, page p
WHERE u.url_id = s.url_id
AND s.section_id = p.section";
if (!$result = mysql_query($sql))
{
die('Could not obtain results');
}
while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($result))
{
$url = $row['url_name'];
..
..
and what ever e
Thanks
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Thu, November 3, 2005 8:29 am, James Benson wrote:
Dear group, can someone suggest the best way to do the following
without
writing some lengthy script that (possibly) could lead to performance
issues,
I have three DB fields in MySQL, each has a unique ID, I
On Thu, November 3, 2005 8:29 am, James Benson wrote:
> Dear group, can someone suggest the best way to do the following
> without
> writing some lengthy script that (possibly) could lead to performance
> issues,
>
>
> I have three DB fields in MySQL, each has a unique ID, I cannot think
> of
> any
Michael Gale wrote:
> I am working on a ticket tracking system and using htmlentities and
> htmlspecialchars on text that gets inserted into the database.
>
> code I have:
>
> --snip--
> if ((isset($_POST['tentry_body'])) AND strlen($_POST['tentry_body']) > 5)
> {
> $query .= " tentry_body =
Hello,
Thanks for all of the responses ... I am going to use
mysql_real_escape_string.
Michael.
Jordi Canals wrote:
Hi, a couple of comments:
--snip--
htmlentities(htmlspecialchars($_POST['tentry_body'])) . "'";
--snip--
Why are you using both htmlentities and htmlspecialchars? Think that
htm
Hi, a couple of comments:
> --snip--
> htmlentities(htmlspecialchars($_POST['tentry_body'])) . "'";
> --snip--
Why are you using both htmlentities and htmlspecialchars? Think that
html only converts some entities while htmlentities converts all ...
so, for your purposes, apliying only one could
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 18:31, Michael Gale wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a ticket tracking system and using htmlentities and
> htmlspecialchars on text that gets inserted into the database.
>
> code I have:
>
> --snip--
> if ((isset($_POST['tentry_body'])) AND strlen($_POST['tentry_b
* Thus wrote Hans H. Anderson:
> I'm trying to tweak my server a bit and wonder if it is better to have a large
> include file, say 20-40 kb with 15 user-defined functions, of which maybe 3 or 4
This is all a 'depends' situation. Of those 15 functions how many
of them are actually executed accross
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:41:10 -0500 (CDT), Hans H. Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to tweak my server a bit and wonder if it is better to have a large
> include file, say 20-40 kb with 15 user-defined functions, of which maybe 3 or 4
> are used on any given page, or to have each func
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
