Test de performan o velocidad PHP

100% es el valor mas rápido.

Using the &-ref-operator...as a so called "alias"

Is a good idea to use the &-ref-operator to substitute (or alias) a complex mutidim-array? . Call 1'000x

E.g. $person = &$aHach["country"]["zip"]["street"]["number"]["name"]

+ 185 %

$alias = $aSingleDimArray[$i]

Total time: 443 µsview code

+ 100 %

$alias = &$aSingleDimArray[$i]

Total time: 239 µsview code

+ 211 %

$alias = $aMultiDimArray[$i]["aaaaa"]["aaaaaaaaaa"]

Total time: 503 µsview code

+ 363 %

$alias = &$aMultiDimArray[$i]["aaaaa"]["aaaaaaaaaa"]

Total time: 866 µsview code

+ 243 %

$alias = veryMultiDimArray[$i]["a"]["aa"]["aaa"]["aaaa"]["aaaaa"]

Total time: 580 µsview code

+ 759 %

$alias = &$veryMultiDimArray[$i]["a"]["aa"]["aaa"]["aaaa"]["aaaaa"]

Total time: 1814 µsview code

Conclusion:

Whilst only using a one dimensional array, it's actually faster to use an alias, but anything larger will result in a performance drop.

Modify Loop: foreach() vs. for vs. while(list() = each())

What would happen if we alter the reading loop test to test the results of a loop created to simply alter the data in each of the values in the array?

Given again is a Hash array with 100 elements, 24byte key and 10k data per entry.

+ 579 %

foreach($aHash as $key=>$val) $aHash[$key] .= "a";

Total time: 232 µsview code

+ 227 %

while(list($key) = each($aHash)) $aHash[$key] .= "a";

Total time: 91 µsview code

+ 100 %

$key = array_keys($aHash);
$size = sizeOf($key);
for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++) $aHash[$key[$i]] .= "a";

Total time: 40 µsview code

Conclusion:

Proof in this example shows how functionally murderous the foreach() loop can be.

Using the =&-ref-operator$obj = $someClass->f() vs. $obj =& $someClass->f()

Is a good idea to use the =&-ref-operator when calling a function in an object? Call 1'000x

+ 100 %

$obj = $someClass->f();

Total time: 362 µsview code

+ 227 %

$obj =& $someClass->f();

Total time: 823 µsview code

Conclusion:

Unless your extremely worried about how much RAM your using, leaving the &-ref-operator out seems like the slightly faster option.

Control Structuresswitch/case/default vs. if/elseif/else

Is a there a difference between switch and if structures?. Call 1'000x

+ 178 %

if and elseif (using ==)

Total time: 182 µsview code

+ 175 %

if, elseif and else (using ==)

Total time: 178 µsview code

+ 100 %

if and elseif (using ===)

Total time: 102 µsview code

+ 103 %

if, elseif and else (using ===)

Total time: 105 µsview code

+ 155 %

switch / case

Total time: 158 µsview code

+ 187 %

switch / case / default

Total time: 191 µsview code

Conclusion:

Using a switch/case or if/elseif is almost the same. Note that the test is unsing === (is exactly equal to) and is slightly faster then using == (is equal to).

Counting LoopsFor vs. While

Is there an actual difference between counting up between the for loop and the while loop?

+ 110 %

for($i = 0; $i <>

Total time: 63053 µsview code

+ 100 %

$i = 0; while($i <>

Total time: 57511 µsview code

Conclusion:

Well there you have it, the while loop 90% of the time is indeed slightly faster

Variable Type CheckingisSet() vs. empty() vs. is_array()

What is the performance of isSet() and empty(). Call 2'000x

+ 130 %

isSet() with var that was set

Total time: 237 µsview code

+ 123 %

empty() with var that was set

Total time: 224 µsview code

+ 105 %

isSet() with var that was *not* set

Total time: 192 µsview code

+ 129 %

empty() with var that was *not* set

Total time: 236 µsview code

+ 122 %

isSet() with array-var that was set

Total time: 222 µsview code

+ 125 %

empty() with array-var that was set

Total time: 228 µsview code

+ 106 %

isSet() with array-var that was *not* set

Total time: 193 µsview code

+ 100 %

empty() with array-var that was *not* set

Total time: 183 µsview code

+ 294 %

is_array() of an array

Total time: 538 µsview code

+ 289 %

is_array() of a string

Total time: 529 µsview code

+ 644 %

is_array() of a non set value

Total time: 1177 µsview code

+ 702 %

isSet() AND is_array() of a non set value

Total time: 1284 µsview code

Conclusion:

isSet() and empty() are identical. So alway check if val is set at all befor using type-checking. E.g. if (isSet($foo) AND is_array($foo))

Using the =&-ref-operator$obj = new SomeClass() vs. $obj =& new SomeClass()

Is a good idea to use the =&-ref-operator when creating a new object? Call 1'000x

+ 100 %

$obj = new SomeClass();

Total time: 484 µsview code

+ 112 %

$obj =& new SomeClass();

Total time: 540 µsview code

Conclusion:

There seams to be no difference in performance.

String Outputecho vs. print

Is a there a difference between what option you use to output your content?. Called within Output Buffering 1'000x

+ 100 %

echo ''

Total time: 88 µsview code

+ 114 %

print ''

Total time: 100 µsview code

+ 131 %

echo 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Total time: 115 µsview code

+ 139 %

print 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Total time: 122 µsview code

+ 134 %

echo 'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'

Total time: 118 µsview code

+ 324 %

echo 'aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa'

Total time: 285 µsview code

+ 148 %

print 'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'

Total time: 130 µsview code

+ 506 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo 'aaaaaaa'.$a.'aaaaaaa'.$a

Total time: 445 µsview code

+ 458 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo 'aaaaaaa',$a,'aaaaaaa',$a

Total time: 403 µsview code

+ 514 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
print 'aaaaaaa'.$a.'aaaaaaa'.$a

Total time: 452 µsview code

+ 514 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo $a.$a.$a.$a

Total time: 452 µsview code

+ 452 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo $a,$a,$a,$a

Total time: 398 µsview code

+ 516 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
print $a,$a,$a,$a

Total time: 454 µsview code

Conclusion:

In reality the echo and print functions serve the exact purpose and therefore in the backend the exact same code applies. The one small thing to notice is that when using a comma to separate items whilst using the echo function, items run slightly faster.

Counting LoopsFor-loop test

Is it worth the effort to calculate the length of the loop in advance?

e.g. "for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++)" instead of "for ($i=0; $i

A loop with 1000 keys with 1 byte values are given.

+ 100 %

With pre calc - count()

Total time: 151 µsview code

+ 51328 %

Without pre calc - count()

Total time: 77464 µsview code

+ 101 %

With pre calc - sizeof()

Total time: 152 µsview code

+ 51673 %

Without pre calc - sizeof()

Total time: 77984 µsview code

Conclusion:

Unsurprising results... this is one of the easiest things to implement in any application and is the widest agreed upon benchmarking item within the online PHP community. The results basically speak for themselves.

Read Loop:foreach() vs. for() vs. while(list() = each())

What is the best way to loop a hash array?

Given is a Hash array with 100 elements, 24byte key and 10k data per entry

+ 100 %

foreach($aHash as $val);

Total time: 11 µsview code

+ 702 %

while(list(,$val) = each($aHash));

Total time: 77 µsview code

+ 128 %

foreach($aHash as $key => $val);

Total time: 14 µsview code

+ 765 %

while(list($key,$val) = each($aHash));

Total time: 84 µsview code

+ 248 %

foreach($aHash as $key=>$val) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key];

Total time: 27 µsview code

+ 830 %

while(list($key) = each($aHash)) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key];

Total time: 91 µsview code

+ 328 %

Get key-/ value-array: foreach($aHash as $key[]=>$val[]);

Total time: 36 µsview code

+ 274 %

Get key-/ value-array: array_keys() / array_values()

Total time: 30 µsview code

+ 365 %

$key = array_keys($aHash);
$size = sizeOf($key);
for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key[$i]];

Total time: 40 µsview code

Conclusion:

In all cases I've found that the foreach loop is substantially faster than both the while() and for() loop procedures. One thing to note is that when using an entire loop from the start it's extremely good to use the reset() function in all examples

Given that the previous version of the tests have been very controvercial and incorrect, I must appologise for forgetting to implement the reset() function to allow the while() loops to start from the beginning instead of the end. Thanks to Anthony Bush for spotting this out.

Quote Typesdouble (") vs. single (') quotes

Is a there a difference in using double (") and single (') quotes for strings. Call 1'000x

+ 109 %

single (') quotes. Just an empty string: $tmp[] = '';

Total time: 272 µsview code

+ 100 %

double (") quotes. Just an empty string: $tmp[] = "";

Total time: 250 µsview code

+ 105 %

single (') quotes. 20 bytes Text : $tmp[] = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa';

Total time: 261 µsview code

+ 104 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text : $tmp[] = "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa";

Total time: 258 µsview code

+ 100 %

single (') quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a $ : $tmp[] = 'aa $ aaaa $ aaaa $ a';

Total time: 250 µsview code

+ 102 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a $ : $tmp[] = "aa $ aaaa $ aaaa $ a";

Total time: 254 µsview code

+ 100 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a \$ : $tmp[] = "aa \$ aaaa \$ aaaa \$ a";

Total time: 249 µsview code

Conclusion:

In today's versions of PHP it looks like this argument has been satisfied on both sides of the line. Lets all join together in harmony in this one!

Fuente: www.phpbench.com