2014-09-25 22:02 GMT+02:00 Marc Delisle marc@infomarc.info:
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?
I forgot to answer to this question… So the tests are with non mb_* functions.
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.
-- Marc Delisle (phpMyAdmin)
Using wrappers, the time could be doubled. So with his proposition, the wrappers would be created only when mb_* doesn't exist. If mb_* exist, we won't redefine it, but the execution would be slower because mb_* are slower. If mb_* don't exist, the non-mb_* functions would be wrapped, so will be a little bit longer than without wrap. And we would also be able to force the use of non-mb_* functions if needed.
As you said, the only thing that might be difficult, would be to document the fact that mb_* functions could be pMA functions. We should choose between clarity and "performance".
Hugues.