Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Hi, On a busy site (where the milliseconds start to matter) the chances are that the operating system has your include files cached so the load time is probably not a factor. If you install some of the php token caching systems (zend and others) the speed is even better. Gentlemen I do believe I have been misunderstood. What I meant was that there are ways in which you can save pounds perhaps by the bucketfull with possibly much less effort. For example I recently ran into a $1000 software where the most commonly used query was running against a table that had a non-numeric primary key. This same key was being used in multiple joins. Surely that can be optimized to get a huge gain in performance? As to using header and footer includes I found that system really frustrating trying to follow the html. What I have switched to is templates where the site layout is a template and each php page generates the content and passes it one include file that does the final mix. this way my html developer has control over the html and can edit it as one file most of the time. Processing templates also consumes a bit of extra clock cycles. -- Raditha Dissanayake. --- http://www.radinks.com/upload/ Drag and Drop Upload thousands of files and folders in a single transfer. (HTTP or FTP) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 05:11, Raditha Dissanayake wrote: As to using header and footer includes I found that system really frustrating trying to follow the html. What I have switched to is templates where the site layout is a template and each php page generates the content and passes it one include file that does the final mix. this way my html developer has control over the html and can edit it as one file most of the time. Processing templates also consumes a bit of extra clock cycles. You assume run time processing of templates :) Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Robert Cummings wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 05:11, Raditha Dissanayake wrote: As to using header and footer includes I found that system really frustrating trying to follow the html. What I have switched to is templates where the site layout is a template and each php page generates the content and passes it one include file that does the final mix. this way my html developer has control over the html and can edit it as one file most of the time. Processing templates also consumes a bit of extra clock cycles. You assume run time processing of templates :) point conceded. Cheers, Rob. -- Raditha Dissanayake. --- http://www.radinks.com/upload/ Drag and Drop Upload thousands of files and folders in a single transfer. (HTTP or FTP) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
If you are that concerned about it, pear install apc. Your include files will be cached in memory and the only cost per include file is a single stat() system call and looking up the opcode cache in shared memory. -Rasmus -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Rob Paxon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Monday, March 15, 2004 9:24 PM said: Bear with me while I dish out some details. My question concerns the efficiency of using multiple file includes versus storing segments of data in one include as arrays or functions. have you considered the size of your includes? maybe cutting the size down by splitting them into more concise files would help? in this way you could more precisely include what you needed and leave the rest out. just a thought. chris. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Rob Paxon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Monday, March 15, 2004 9:24 PM said: Bear with me while I dish out some details. My question concerns the efficiency of using multiple file includes versus storing segments of data in one include as arrays or functions. have you considered the size of your includes? maybe cutting the size down by splitting them into more concise files would help? in this way you could more precisely include what you needed and leave the rest out. Sometimes having less included files with more content is more efficient than having a lot of small files, an example would be making a seperate include for each function, this has its advantages especially in smarty's case but can be inefficient because you must fetch each file from disk which has overhead. I'd suggest profiling your code, use the PEAR Benchmark class and use PHP's memory usage functions to determine what parts of your code are consuming the most resources and taking the longest amount of time to execute, then try some experiments and profile each experiment to determine the most efficient solution. Different versions of PHP, different application frameworks, and applications in general will respond to optimization techniques differently, for example there is little sense in spending 40 hours optimizing variable usage in a program to increase performance when 75% of the program is database server bound, your time would be better spent optimizing the SQL. In my commericial websites I have modified my application framework not to connect to the database, start output buffering, start the session and do other overhead if specific constants are declared. For example if I have contact.php that does some mailing stuff and requires Smarty I can define TEMPLATE_ONLY and only templating related files will be included and initialized. Doing this optmization made pages roughly 50% faster that did not require session or a database connection and also reduces the load on the sql server because you are not connecting unless you actually need the connection and still benefit from having a single connection call instead of connecting in each function or file. just a thought. chris. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Jason Sheets wrote: Sometimes having less included files with more content is more efficient than having a lot of small files [...] I'd think in my case, this is true. Generally, nothing is in these main include files that aren't needed by every page. I'd suggest profiling your code, use the PEAR Benchmark class and use PHP's memory usage functions to determine what parts of your code are consuming the most resources and taking the longest amount of time to execute, then try some experiments and profile each experiment to determine the most efficient solution. Profiling is something I've been doing a lot of in the past week or so, via various debuggers. I wasn't aware of a PEAR Benchmarking class, I'll have to check it out. In my commericial websites I have modified my application framework not to connect to the database, start output buffering, start the session and do other overhead if specific constants are declared. For example if I have contact.php that does some mailing stuff and requires Smarty I can define TEMPLATE_ONLY and only templating related files will be included and initialized. Doing this optmization made pages roughly 50% faster that did not require session or a database connection and also reduces the load on the sql server because you are not connecting unless you actually need the connection and still benefit from having a single connection call instead of connecting in each function or file. I have done similar things. For instance, sessions are only useful to me for people who are actually logged in, so I recently dumped my custom PHP sessions handler and made my own session system. It takes a lot less code than my handler and only connects to the database if the user sends over a session id. The database connection is then closed if the proceeding script doesn't need it or it is opened later if needed, in the case of no session. It creates a session only through the log-in script. This way, sessions are only created and read for those who choose to log in, which is obviously far, far less than %50 of visitors. In the end, it works out to the database only being opened when needed and I've found this to make dramatic difference, even on my sorry old local enviroment. I'm glad to see this topic got so many different responses. Thanks fellas - Rob Paxon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Pardon me if this subject has been discussed, but a search of the archive didn't bring up much of anything. Bear with me while I dish out some details. My question concerns the efficiency of using multiple file includes versus storing segments of data in one include as arrays or functions. While rebuilding the core of my web site network and, after reading some negative things about file includes, I was forced to rethink how I am structuring things. Here are some details: *One domain serving, with around 5 sites as subdomains currently and more soon to come. *Each script on every site includes a global file that has sessions stuff and network-wide functions. *Each script includes a header.php file for the specific site's layout. *Each script includes a footer.php for ditto. *I am currently on a virtual server, but obviously will need to move on to a dedicated very shortly. It is my understanding, as disk reads are so slow, that it is not a good idea to include multiple files. I always knew this, but I never really thought about it. While thinking of how to optimize it, I considered merging header.php and the global file as one. However, I then realized some scripts access the database before including the header as to dynamically change meta tags (say, for Articles). I could use output buffering but, well, I'm not going to. So I was thinking of making one include file that contained the following: The former global contents (which I'd have to use a batch file to manage this section of the file for all sites at once, no big deal), header.php as a function, and the same for footer.php. My main question is, will this, with any certainty, be more considerably more efficient than simply including three files? Would it be more efficient to put header and footer in arrays? Keep in mind I'd have to use eval() on header as all of my headers contain some php code. Another method that would involve using eval() would be to store the headers and footers in databases, but I highly doubt this would be more efficient than storing them in arrays or functions. Another situation, which I am quite certain would benefit from using a function instead of an include, is that of scripts using forms. These forms need to be included on more than one line, such as when the data is empty or invalid and the form needs to be shown again. But forms are relatively small compared to most of my headers. So there you have it. How does an include compare to a function or a function to an array? Is there a big difference in how the data is stored in memory with a function versus an array? Would one choice be more efficient on a virtual server, while another more efficient on a dedicated (because of memory considerations)? I'm going to just assume the database is not the most efficient choice here. Thank you to all those who will respond, and even those who simply read this whole message. -Rob Paxon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
It is my understanding, as disk reads are so slow, that it is not a good idea to include multiple files. I always knew this, but I never really thought about it. Rob, you will find people who religiously avoid includes have pages that include dozens and dozens of images there by negating the microseconds gained by not using includes. I will refrain from commenting on the rest of the mail primarily because i feel trying to shave a few milliseconds here or there by changing the includes, moving from double to single quotes etc are all futile efforts. Real speed and scalability comes from algorithms backed up by tight coding. -- Raditha Dissanayake. --- http://www.radinks.com/upload/ Drag and Drop Upload thousands of files and folders in a single transfer. (HTTP or FTP) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
Thanks for the reply. In my case there aren't many external files associated with the script. 1 css file per site and no images except on a few very specific pages. Adding images does not negate the shaved microseconds. I see what you mean, but it doesn't literally negate the saved load. The images would be there whether or not the includes are used. I'm sure there are millionaires out there who still pinch pennies. That being said, I do appreciate your point, and I'm not one to go overboard with these kinds of things. However, it is quite simply a matter of three ways to do this with one being faster. Why would I, for something so fundamental to my application (used on every pageview across the network), not use the fastest method unless it brought some great inconvenience to me? Since I am already restructuring things, it would not bring about much inconvenience to me. I do expect my sites growth to be quite substantial over the coming year, so it can't hurt to pinch my pennies now, even if I currently have an embarassment of riches. Some day a millionaire might lose everything, except for the jar of pennies he has on his dresser. Raditha Dissanayake wrote: It is my understanding, as disk reads are so slow, that it is not a good idea to include multiple files. I always knew this, but I never really thought about it. Rob, you will find people who religiously avoid includes have pages that include dozens and dozens of images there by negating the microseconds gained by not using includes. I will refrain from commenting on the rest of the mail primarily because i feel trying to shave a few milliseconds here or there by changing the includes, moving from double to single quotes etc are all futile efforts. Real speed and scalability comes from algorithms backed up by tight coding. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Efficieny: Include vs Array vs Function
I have used templating for specific projects in the past (and never really liked it), but for this group of sites I handle both ends, so it loses a lot of its worth. The factor of a caching system like Zend is something I have overlooked. Currently, I wouldn't assume my virtual host uses it, but it is something I have planned to purchase when I make the move to a dedicated server. As for trying to follow the HTML in an include system, I don't have too much of a problem with it personally. Perhaps because there isn't much to my HTML, as I try to stick with a basic XHTML document layout that can be manipulated by CSS. In other words, I never really have to edit my HTML, except for the static text within when the need be. Thanks for the info. I suppose I'll just stay with the includes for this round and if I know of a better way next time I do my spring cleaning--which probably won't have the coincidence of falling near spring again--I'll run with it. - Rob Paxon Tom Rogers wrote: Hi, On a busy site (where the milliseconds start to matter) the chances are that the operating system has your include files cached so the load time is probably not a factor. If you install some of the php token caching systems (zend and others) the speed is even better. As to using header and footer includes I found that system really frustrating trying to follow the html. What I have switched to is templates where the site layout is a template and each php page generates the content and passes it one include file that does the final mix. this way my html developer has control over the html and can edit it as one file most of the time. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
