Hi, For some time I was curious whether PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr is needed at all, and my test showed that there are faster (sometimes much faster) alternatives. Test for 100 000 iterations on PHP 5.3.4 (Windows, i5 2,53 GHz core): PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr: 2.6606s array_search: 1.8936s isset: 0.0102s array_key_exists: 0.0934s Isset and array_key_exists require flipped array, but array_search is a drop-in replacement that works faster, even though it does a linear search. Code used to perform this test is at [1]. [1] http://pastebin.com/cJmpmCPh

Marc Delisle a écrit : > Piotr Przybylski a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> For some time I was curious whether PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr is >> needed at all, and my test showed that there are faster (sometimes >> much faster) alternatives. Test for 100 000 iterations on PHP 5.3.4 >> (Windows, i5 2,53 GHz core): >> >> PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr: 2.6606s >> array_search: 1.8936s >> isset: 0.0102s >> array_key_exists: 0.0934s >> >> Isset and array_key_exists require flipped array, but array_search is >> a drop-in replacement that works faster, even though it does a linear >> search. Code used to perform this test is at [1]. >> >> [1] http://pastebin.com/cJmpmCPh >> > Piotr, > I tested on a 64-bit Linux machine (running as a VM under ESX 4.1) under > PHP 5.3.6-RC3 and got different results (for current master): > > Binary search: 0.6088 > array_search: 2.0246 > isset: 0.0068 > array_key_exists: 0.0176 > > > And on a similar VM running PHP 5.2.17: Binary search: 0.7197 array_search: 2.7731 isset: 0.0075 array_key_exists: 0.0178

Rouslan Placella a écrit : > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 12:25 -0400, Marc Delisle wrote: >> Marc Delisle a écrit : >>> Piotr Przybylski a écrit : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> For some time I was curious whether PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr is >>>> needed at all, and my test showed that there are faster (sometimes >>>> much faster) alternatives. Test for 100 000 iterations on PHP 5.3.4 >>>> (Windows, i5 2,53 GHz core): >>>> >>>> PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr: 2.6606s >>>> array_search: 1.8936s >>>> isset: 0.0102s >>>> array_key_exists: 0.0934s >>>> >>>> Isset and array_key_exists require flipped array, but array_search is >>>> a drop-in replacement that works faster, even though it does a linear >>>> search. Code used to perform this test is at [1]. >>>> >>>> [1] http://pastebin.com/cJmpmCPh >>>> >>> Piotr, >>> I tested on a 64-bit Linux machine (running as a VM under ESX 4.1) under >>> PHP 5.3.6-RC3 and got different results (for current master): >>> >>> Binary search: 0.6088 >>> array_search: 2.0246 >>> isset: 0.0068 >>> array_key_exists: 0.0176 >>> >>> >>> >> And on a similar VM running PHP 5.2.17: >> >> Binary search: 0.7197 >> array_search: 2.7731 >> isset: 0.0075 >> array_key_exists: 0.0178 >> > My results look a lot like Marc's, too: > > PHP: 5.3.5 > PMA: Latest GIT > OS: Ubuntu Linux 11.04 - 64bit > CPU: AMD Phenom II @ 3.95GHz > RAM: DDR2 @ 1066MHz > > Binary search: 0.4967 > array_search: 1.5545 > isset: 0.0041 > array_key_exists: 0.0162 > > Rouslan isset() on a flipped array is the winner, but would require a logic verification everywhere to be sure we flip a minimum of times. I also like the fact that we would no longer need to maintain a long list of keywords in proper alpha order.

Piotr Przybylski a écrit : > 2011/6/7 Marc Delisle <marc(a)infomarc.info>fo>: >> Rouslan Placella a écrit : >>> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 12:25 -0400, Marc Delisle wrote: >>>> Marc Delisle a écrit : >>>>> Piotr Przybylski a écrit : >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> For some time I was curious whether PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr is >>>>>> needed at all, and my test showed that there are faster (sometimes >>>>>> much faster) alternatives. Test for 100 000 iterations on PHP 5.3.4 >>>>>> (Windows, i5 2,53 GHz core): >>>>>> >>>>>> PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr: 2.6606s >>>>>> array_search: 1.8936s >>>>>> isset: 0.0102s >>>>>> array_key_exists: 0.0934s >>>>>> >>>>>> Isset and array_key_exists require flipped array, but array_search is >>>>>> a drop-in replacement that works faster, even though it does a linear >>>>>> search. Code used to perform this test is at [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://pastebin.com/cJmpmCPh >>>>>> >>>>> Piotr, >>>>> I tested on a 64-bit Linux machine (running as a VM under ESX 4.1) under >>>>> PHP 5.3.6-RC3 and got different results (for current master): >>>>> >>>>> Binary search: 0.6088 >>>>> array_search: 2.0246 >>>>> isset: 0.0068 >>>>> array_key_exists: 0.0176 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And on a similar VM running PHP 5.2.17: >>>> >>>> Binary search: 0.7197 >>>> array_search: 2.7731 >>>> isset: 0.0075 >>>> array_key_exists: 0.0178 >>>> >>> My results look a lot like Marc's, too: >>> >>> PHP: 5.3.5 >>> PMA: Latest GIT >>> OS: Ubuntu Linux 11.04 - 64bit >>> CPU: AMD Phenom II @ 3.95GHz >>> RAM: DDR2 @ 1066MHz >>> >>> Binary search: 0.4967 >>> array_search: 1.5545 >>> isset: 0.0041 >>> array_key_exists: 0.0162 >>> >>> Rouslan >> isset() on a flipped array is the winner, but would require a logic >> verification everywhere to be sure we flip a minimum of times. >> >> I also like the fact that we would no longer need to maintain a long >> list of keywords in proper alpha order. >> > I was really counting on array_search results, but in this case I > believe binary search is justified by code readability. > IMO the new form would be more readable. Current: PMA_STR_binarySearchInArr($d_cur_upper, $PMA_SQPdata_function_name, $PMA_SQPdata_function_name_cnt) New: isset($PMA_SQPdata_function_name_flipped[$d_cur_upper])