[Phpmyadmin-devel] #4536 - master: import problem (PMA_String)

[Hugues Peccatte]

2014-09-25 22:02 GMT+02:00 Marc Delisle <marc at infomarc.info>:

> Hugues Peccatte a écrit :
> > 2014-09-25 20:08 GMT+02:00 Chirayu Chiripal <chirayu.chiripal at gmail.com
> >:
> >
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Hugues Peccatte <
> >> hugues.peccatte at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2014-09-24 14:42 GMT+02:00 Chirayu Chiripal <
> chirayu.chiripal at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phpmyadmin.net/pipermail/developers/attachments/20140925/7679126f/attachment.html>