Hugues Peccatte a écrit :
2014-09-25 20:08 GMT+02:00 Chirayu Chiripal chirayu.chiripal@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Hugues Peccatte < hugues.peccatte@gmail.com> wrote:
2014-09-24 14:42 GMT+02:00 Chirayu Chiripal chirayu.chiripal@gmail.com:
I was just wondering what will be the effect if we make current methods as static in those classes?
-- Regards, Chirayu Chiripal https://chirayuchiripal.wordpress.com/
It's almost the same thing to use a static or a non-static function. This is 2.5x slower than standard PHP function.
See: Time: 1.7506999969482 //standard PHP function Time: 4.3722500801086 //object Time: 4.3722498416901 //object with static function Time: 3.6722099781036 //PMA function, even this one is 2x slower than standard PHP function…
Are these tests performed on mb_* function or non mb_* one?
One thing is clear from these results is that even wrapping a built in function in another function (wrapper function) has some significant overhead. And using OOP/Classes is like wrapping that wrapper function further into a another wrapper causing further slowness. So why not just use mb_* function directly everywhere? If we do this, then what to do in case mb_* functions are not available? Maybe we can just define a new mb_* function to use respective non mb_* function for it. For e.g. // Define a function like this function mb_strlen($str) { return strlen($str); } // or create an alias of strlen() as mb_strlen() (I heard this is possible in PHP 5.6+)
By doing this, we can get speed advantage of built in mb_* function whenever it is available by avoiding any wrapper function or class. And in cases where it is not available, a wrapper function with standard non mb function can deliver equivalent performance as non mb function is inherently faster than its mb_* mod.
Hugues.
Hi,
This is a very good idea!
Marc, you asked to create PMA_* string functions. Do you agree with the Chirayu's proposal? So we won't have PMA_* functions, but only mb_* functions.
Hugues.
I have not followed the latest test results in this thread. If it's true that using wrappers has a big cost, I am in favor but I fear that people reading the code do not realize that the mb_* function could be a wrapper.
Not sure how to document this.