Quicker PHP scripts?

PoorDoggie · 05-09-2006, 11:28 AM

Hi. I want to find out if these are quicker, slower or if there is no difference...

Would changing this:

PHP Code:

  $message = "<table>

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/programming/195573-quicker-php-scripts.html
                  <tr>

                    <td rowspan=\"2\"><img src=\"images/icons/error.gif\" alt=\"Six - Error!\" /></td>

                    <td><b>Error</b></td>

                  </tr>

                  <tr>

                    <td>To increase relevancy Six only shows upto the <b>1000</b>th result (you requested $start)</td>

                  </tr>

                </table>";

to this:

PHP Code:

  $message = "<table><tr><td rowspan=\"2\"><img src=\"images/icons/error.gif\" alt=\"Six - Error!\" /></td><td><b>Error</b></td></tr><tr><td>To increase relevancy Six only shows upto the <b>1000</b>th result (you requested $start)</td></tr></table>";

be any quicker (bearing in mind that code like this appears many places in my scripts)

and would this:

PHP Code:

  $echo .= "<td width=\"33%\" class=\"gray_small\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"image.php?qs=";

        $echo .= urlencode($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']);

        $echo .= "&thumb=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Thumbnail']['Url']);

        $echo .= "&site=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['RefererUrl']);

        $echo .= "&title=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Title']);

        $echo .= "&url=";

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Url']);

        $echo .= "&size=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['FileSize']);

        $echo .= "&format=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['FileFormat']);

        $echo .= "&h=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Height']);

        $echo .= "&w=";

        $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Width']);

        $echo .= "\"><img src=\"";

        $echo .= $result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Thumbnail']['Url'];

        $echo .= "\" /></a><br />";

be any quicker as one long $echo variable? ie:

PHP Code:

  $echo .= "<td width=\"33%\" class=\"gray_small\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"image.php?qs=".urlencode($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'])."&thumb="...

??? Thanks
Tom

Xyzer · 05-09-2006, 11:39 AM

The first one would be no different, im sorry but im not sure on the top one.

If i helped please donate rep.

PoorDoggie · 05-09-2006, 11:54 AM

hmm.. helps but I'm too fond of you, and have to spread the rep a bit apparantly! sorry, can't say I didn't try! lol

mikesherov · 05-09-2006, 12:01 PM

the time savings would be insignificant. the reason there are multiple statements is so the code is easier to read, and left right scrolling is unnecessary when reading.

PoorDoggie · 05-09-2006, 02:19 PM

lol - I know why I wrote the script the way I did, I just wanted to know if I could speed the script up if I were to change it.

I have hundreds of lines of these type of coding, is there any way I can make the script more efficient?

BillyConnite · 05-09-2006, 06:14 PM

In both sets above, neiter would make any difference, and if it did, it would be insignificant as mikesherov suggested.

But if you want to test it yourself, you can use the following code to test the pages loading time:

Put this code above the code you want to time:

PHP Code:

  $time = microtime();

$time = explode(" ", $time);

$time = $time[1] + $time[0];

$start = $time;

Put this code below the code you are timing:

PHP Code:

  $time = microtime();

$time = explode(" ", $time);

$time = $time[1] + $time[0];

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
$finish = $time;

$totaltime = ($finish - $start);

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
printf ("This page took %f seconds to load.", $totaltime);

Hope that helps,
Rhett.

Dan · 05-09-2006, 08:28 PM

No PHP function makes a huge amount of time difference.

There are some functions which are slower than others but by .000x - .0x

My 137 line PHP code takes .001 to load.

david.amherst · 05-09-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by webmonkey

The first one would be no different, im sorry but im not sure on the top one.

If i helped please donate rep.

I don't believe that you are allowed to ask for rep.

sdsinc · 05-10-2006, 12:17 AM

You should try with some benchmarking but I don't think it makes a difference these days because the PHP & ASP parsers are more powerful than they were in the past.
Anyway I prefer not to mix PHP with HTML because the code is really messy and hard to read after... not worth it

Peter · 05-10-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dan Friedman

No PHP function makes a huge amount of time difference.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573

There are some functions which are slower than others but by .000x - .0x

My 137 line PHP code takes .001 to load.

For a small site you are right it does not make a huge difference but for sites that server hundreds of thousands of users then it can make a huge difference.

jerometan · 05-10-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by filth@flexiwebhost

For a small site you are right it does not make a huge difference but for sites that server hundreds of thousands of users then it can make a huge difference.

No, I strongly advise against it.
This makes code unreadable and hard to maintain.
This is especially so for big sites, so i disagree with filth@flexiwebhost.

If you really think that this will have speed improvements, do keep an original copy before squeezing them into 1 line, so that maintenance in future is easier.

PoorDoggie · 05-10-2006, 02:49 AM

ok thanks a lot people. I just wanted to make my web site as fast as possible. Aside from getting a faster server there is no way to do this right?

BillyConnite · 05-10-2006, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by PoorDoggie

ok thanks a lot people. I just wanted to make my web site as fast as possible. Aside from getting a faster server there is no way to do this right?

Nope not really,
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573

You can't really optmize the php statements you have, usually there can be a lot of optimization when it comes to mysql and things, but not basic statements, they're as fast as they can be

mikesherov · 05-10-2006, 09:52 AM

Well, in principle, you can right more efficient code... but something like 1 assignment operation vs. 6 assignment operations is insignificant...

a little trick I like to use to increase my code efficiency:

When generating <SELECT> tags: using str_replace vs. if,then,else to select a default value... as follows:

instead of:

PHP Code:

  $string.='<SELECT>';

foreach($set_of_values as $select_value){

    $string.='<OPTION value="'.$select_value.'"';

    if($select_value==$some_default_value)$string.=' SELECTED';

    $string.='>'.$select_value.'</OPTION>';

}

I do:

PHP Code:

  $string.='<SELECT>';

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
foreach($set_of_values as $select_value){

    $string.='<OPTION value="'.$select_value.'">'.$select_value.'</OPTION>';

}

$string=str_replace('value="'.$select_value.'"','value="'.$select_value.'" SELECTED',$string);

both do the same thing, but instead of using an if statement over an over again, I harness the regex power of str_replace.

It's all about thinking as follows: What the best code to do rounding (in this example, I consider rounding to the nearest integer)?

one approach (the long way):

PHP Code:

  if(substr($number_to_evaluate,strpos($number_to_evaluate,'.'),1)>=5){

    $answer=intval($number_to_evaluate)+1;

} else {

    $answer=intval($number_to_evaluate);

}

another approach (the easy way):

PHP Code:

  $answer=intval($number_to_evaluate+.5);

Peter · 05-10-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by jerometan

No, I strongly advise against it.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573
This makes code unreadable and hard to maintain.
This is especially so for big sites, so i disagree with filth@flexiwebhost.

If you really think that this will have speed improvements, do keep an original copy before squeezing them into 1 line, so that maintenance in future is easier.

My post was a direct response of what Dan Friedman which was that no function sped up a script enough to worry about trying.

Dan · 05-10-2006, 05:55 PM

filth@flexiwebhost:

How is it being fast for small sites any different for more users? PHP doesn't get slower.

Peter · 05-10-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Friedman

filth@flexiwebhost:

How is it being fast for small sites any different for more users? PHP doesn't get slower.

the changes are not as much an impact when the server is not being hit many times a second but if the server is being hit to near it's maximum then millisecond are a big impact, resources are freed up qicker.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573

Look around the internet regarding optimizing php scripts. Granted alot of sites it wouldn't make a huge difference with but if a site takes off then you would be starting on the wrong foot.

Peter · 05-12-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dan Friedman

filth@flexiwebhost:

How is it being fast for small sites any different for more users? PHP doesn't get slower.

just so happened came across this blog entry that talks about optimization of php:-

http://blogs.hackerscenter.com/dcrab/?p=9

Dan · 05-12-2006, 09:19 AM

Yes, str_replace is faster than ereg/eregi/preg and including pointless files is slow. K.

Adding 1 and 5 in different functions.. I don't see the point of that, plus why not just make it one function?

Dan · 05-12-2006, 04:11 PM

I just did a test between str_replace, ereg_replace, eregi_replace, and preg_replace.

I replaced all vowels with nothing in the sentence "Which function is faster? str_replace or eregi_replace" 1000 times.

str_replace: 0.0077230930328369 seconds
preg_replace: 0.0092120170593262 seconds
eregi_replace: 0.011637926101685 seconds
ereg_replace: 0.01211404800415 seconds

Peter · 05-12-2006, 04:42 PM

Dan you missed the point of the post, Yes he showed the obvious slow functions to prove a point.

Languages such as php have many different ways of achieving the same end result and before deciding which to choose you should know which has the most processing power and execution time.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573

For example say you have a mailling list of which 5000 people are subscribed. To send a message to each 1 using the mail() function requires php to open a connection 5000 times (it cloese the connection after each email has been sent). This of course courses overheads server wise as well as an increase of execution time. The same thing can be achieved by making a connection to an smtp server and sending the 5000 emails with only 1 connection, this will save processing power and execution time as it does not have to open and close a connection EVERY time a new message is being sent. Regardless of this the majority of people use the mail() function as 1) they know it is going to work and 2) they have no idea of the possible server overheads caused by it.

Dan · 05-12-2006, 04:56 PM

Obviously 5000 connections are worse than 1...

05-09-2006, 11:28 AM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
PoorDoggie Soon to be RICHdoggie! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: UK Posts: 2,408	Quicker PHP scripts? Hi. I want to find out if these are quicker, slower or if there is no difference... Would changing this: PHP Code: $message = "<table> ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/programming/195573-quicker-php-scripts.html <tr> <td rowspan=\"2\"><img src=\"images/icons/error.gif\" alt=\"Six - Error!\" /></td> <td><b>Error</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>To increase relevancy Six only shows upto the <b>1000</b>th result (you requested $start)</td> </tr> </table>"; to this: PHP Code: `$message = "<table><tr><td rowspan=\"2\"><img src=\"images/icons/error.gif\" alt=\"Six - Error!\" /></td><td><b>Error</b></td></tr><tr><td>To increase relevancy Six only shows upto the <b>1000</b>th result (you requested $start)</td></tr></table>";` be any quicker (bearing in mind that code like this appears many places in my scripts) and would this: PHP Code: $echo .= "<td width=\"33%\" class=\"gray_small\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"image.php?qs="; $echo .= urlencode($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']); $echo .= "&thumb="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Thumbnail']['Url']); $echo .= "&site="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['RefererUrl']); $echo .= "&title="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Title']); $echo .= "&url="; ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Url']); $echo .= "&size="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['FileSize']); $echo .= "&format="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['FileFormat']); $echo .= "&h="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Height']); $echo .= "&w="; $echo .= urlencode($result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Width']); $echo .= "\"><img src=\""; $echo .= $result['ResultSet']['Result'][$anum]['Thumbnail']['Url']; $echo .= "\" /></a><br />"; be any quicker as one long $echo variable? ie: PHP Code: `$echo .= "<td width=\"33%\" class=\"gray_small\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"image.php?qs=".urlencode($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'])."&thumb="...` ??? Thanks Tom

05-09-2006, 06:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
BillyConnite Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Coffs H, Australia Posts: 3,456	In both sets above, neiter would make any difference, and if it did, it would be insignificant as mikesherov suggested. But if you want to test it yourself, you can use the following code to test the pages loading time: Put this code above the code you want to time: PHP Code: `$time = microtime(); $time = explode(" ", $time); $time = $time[1] + $time[0]; $start = $time;` Put this code below the code you are timing: PHP Code: `$time = microtime(); $time = explode(" ", $time); $time = $time[1] + $time[0]; ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 $finish = $time; $totaltime = ($finish - $start); ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 printf ("This page took %f seconds to load.", $totaltime);` Hope that helps, Rhett. __________________ Free Forums / GoDaddy Coupon Codes (NEW DOMAIN!) / Free Arcade Script / <?='Your computer is '.(1?fine:broken).'.'?>

05-10-2006, 12:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
sdsinc Domains my Dominion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Web 1.0 Posts: 9,552	You should try with some benchmarking but I don't think it makes a difference these days because the PHP & ASP parsers are more powerful than they were in the past. Anyway I prefer not to mix PHP with HTML because the code is really messy and hard to read after... not worth it __________________ NameNewsletter.com - free lists of available domain names ZoneFiles.net (beta) - ccTLD and gTLD droplists

05-10-2006, 09:52 AM	#14 (permalink)
mikesherov NamePros Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 117	Well, in principle, you can right more efficient code... but something like 1 assignment operation vs. 6 assignment operations is insignificant... a little trick I like to use to increase my code efficiency: When generating <SELECT> tags: using str_replace vs. if,then,else to select a default value... as follows: instead of: PHP Code: `$string.='<SELECT>'; foreach($set_of_values as $select_value){ $string.='<OPTION value="'.$select_value.'"'; if($select_value==$some_default_value)$string.=' SELECTED'; $string.='>'.$select_value.'</OPTION>'; }` I do: PHP Code: `$string.='<SELECT>'; ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 foreach($set_of_values as $select_value){ $string.='<OPTION value="'.$select_value.'">'.$select_value.'</OPTION>'; } $string=str_replace('value="'.$select_value.'"','value="'.$select_value.'" SELECTED',$string);` both do the same thing, but instead of using an if statement over an over again, I harness the regex power of str_replace. It's all about thinking as follows: What the best code to do rounding (in this example, I consider rounding to the nearest integer)? one approach (the long way): PHP Code: `if(substr($number_to_evaluate,strpos($number_to_evaluate,'.'),1)>=5){ $answer=intval($number_to_evaluate)+1; } else { $answer=intval($number_to_evaluate); }` another approach (the easy way): PHP Code: `$answer=intval($number_to_evaluate+.5);`

05-09-2006, 11:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
Xyzer Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: United Kindom Posts: 1,502	The first one would be no different, im sorry but im not sure on the top one. If i helped please donate rep.

05-09-2006, 11:54 AM	THREAD STARTER #3 (permalink)
PoorDoggie Soon to be RICHdoggie! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: UK Posts: 2,408	hmm.. helps but I'm too fond of you, and have to spread the rep a bit apparantly! sorry, can't say I didn't try! lol

05-09-2006, 12:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
mikesherov NamePros Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 117	the time savings would be insignificant. the reason there are multiple statements is so the code is easier to read, and left right scrolling is unnecessary when reading.

05-09-2006, 02:19 PM	THREAD STARTER #5 (permalink)
PoorDoggie Soon to be RICHdoggie! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: UK Posts: 2,408	lol - I know why I wrote the script the way I did, I just wanted to know if I could speed the script up if I were to change it. I have hundreds of lines of these type of coding, is there any way I can make the script more efficient?

05-09-2006, 08:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
Dan Buy my domains. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,796	No PHP function makes a huge amount of time difference. There are some functions which are slower than others but by .000x - .0x My 137 line PHP code takes .001 to load.

05-10-2006, 02:49 AM	THREAD STARTER #12 (permalink)
PoorDoggie Soon to be RICHdoggie! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: UK Posts: 2,408	ok thanks a lot people. I just wanted to make my web site as fast as possible. Aside from getting a faster server there is no way to do this right?

05-10-2006, 05:55 PM	#16 (permalink)
Dan Buy my domains. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,796	filth@flexiwebhost: How is it being fast for small sites any different for more users? PHP doesn't get slower.

05-12-2006, 09:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
Dan Buy my domains. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,796	Yes, str_replace is faster than ereg/eregi/preg and including pointless files is slow. K. Adding 1 and 5 in different functions.. I don't see the point of that, plus why not just make it one function?

05-12-2006, 04:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
Dan Buy my domains. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,796	I just did a test between str_replace, ereg_replace, eregi_replace, and preg_replace. I replaced all vowels with nothing in the sentence "Which function is faster? str_replace or eregi_replace" 1000 times. str_replace: 0.0077230930328369 seconds preg_replace: 0.0092120170593262 seconds eregi_replace: 0.011637926101685 seconds ereg_replace: 0.01211404800415 seconds

05-12-2006, 04:42 PM	#21 (permalink)
Peter NamePros Expert Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Scotland Posts: 5,069	Dan you missed the point of the post, Yes he showed the obvious slow functions to prove a point. Languages such as php have many different ways of achieving the same end result and before deciding which to choose you should know which has the most processing power and execution time. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=195573 For example say you have a mailling list of which 5000 people are subscribed. To send a message to each 1 using the mail() function requires php to open a connection 5000 times (it cloese the connection after each email has been sent). This of course courses overheads server wise as well as an increase of execution time. The same thing can be achieved by making a connection to an smtp server and sending the 5000 emails with only 1 connection, this will save processing power and execution time as it does not have to open and close a connection EVERY time a new message is being sent. Regardless of this the majority of people use the mail() function as 1) they know it is going to work and 2) they have no idea of the possible server overheads caused by it.

05-12-2006, 04:56 PM	#22 (permalink)
Dan Buy my domains. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,796	Obviously 5000 connections are worse than 1...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)