"Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You mention that you could have written the PHP code in a more efficient
> using continue(). Why not time this as surely a built in function would be
> quicker than one written in the code.
-- snip to my old test results --
> >
> > [dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.php > /dev/null
> >
> > real    0m14.465s
> > user    0m8.610s
> > sys     0m0.070s
> >
> > [dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.pl > /dev/null
> >
> > real    0m5.302s
> > user    0m3.180s
> > sys     0m0.000s

My intent upon writing this program was to compare the relative speed of
execution between PERL and PHP, however it's been established that it's not
really a valid test as PERL is optimized for looping whereas PHP is better
in other areas. (Personally, I don't know the PHP source very well but I'm
curious as to whether trying to bring it closer to PERL's speed is an
eventual design goal -- I DO have some tightly-looping PHP code that does
see frequent use and it would be nice to speed it up. (but my own code could
be sped up with a better algorithm too -- I'd ask about it but it's not a
priority to me at the moment)). My intent was to make the scripts as equal
as possible so the results would reflect pure speed and not capabilities of
the language. (Of course, I've been told PERL has an equivalent to PHP's
continue(n) syntax, so the issue is moot.)

However, for the sake of completeness I'll profile both variants of
prime.php again:

Old method (set temp val, break, test temp val, continue if temp val set):

[dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.php > /dev/null

real    0m14.304s
user    0m8.520s
sys     0m0.060s

new method: (continue(2);)

[dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.php > /dev/null

real    0m14.402s
user    0m8.620s
sys     0m0.030s


To be fair, I only timed the old method once and took the average from three
times on the new method (I changed my only copy of the code and didn't feel
like changing it back to retest the old method). The times shown in my
original tests (above) probably more accurately reflect the old method than
the current ones.

That being said, it looks like continue(2) is actually a tiny tiny bit
slower (we're talking around 0.010s over a 10000-iteration loop on a 700 mhz
machine here) than doing it by hand the old way. With an amount that small
though, I'm more inclined to believe it's just statistical error/random
variance than anything else.

-- Daniel Grace

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to