Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118597 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 66286 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2022 12:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2022 12:23:25 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FA41804A7 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 05:23:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS8560 212.227.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1662812598; bh=D4bZqvGw/0Zk4LbAFYtqiFn2Q1T1UL40q35x4jTer7U=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Q2RcDoIm+9r3OC728dOom+po14JbUuFUJCFvbBa3QfHN2pXRgXyTv7RipunfZS6Eb MaC47H8bxalM+/VsNm1euy2iNNufDd63xNBeuakcqPZGs3Yv+w858ygDtVbUFoQ5w5 PHC1ceZBhO1mUKai7p6KVMe005uhTAiLuj+L1b1M= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.2.130] ([79.220.93.232]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MYNJg-1otf7c3Isk-00VQn4; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 14:23:18 +0200 Message-ID: <3ba19901-2a14-3869-0c65-5b4bfed5bcb5@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 14:23:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 To: Eugene Sidelnyk , PHP Internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:mZuwaYq/GhViKy1++jIQg7P3zjZ+N4DvUKFEJlCxMd8TA/rSAyr 3zpZuseCjkyrw2ZCksX7m2oK03nC7md6XAqvwiMWbm8aauqj0PJMTeC41/76wFUJXIQbJ74 qMzP+JYeufRBd/mJ007hv4XGQV72/znKZbEPinFglW3oblaU0Lb/GzrkR5JvmfIfQljXb4G TZknDmXdXqkINokNWmAyw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ryQDba8yjfI=:7TXT7rtfObFfbmFjGGS8jm 780zLret0BdzGwBctmmzhQu43MIFPzl7MvW9tIgUWcNOaNA1aEwc4kWmKalxUP2wvtLLpWY6F 2BdrF1EHtZVGdu+Hiq7bD90ZH6h2TIJhx6kpBl6ZP8a61suuzjwVdXmN9mFJB+f4OKWqJ6s/Y mm9ai1T9pSNIhQ0ePA5HOyU5jma2DPEsROtPGlTequjfsnw52/aBaLmn+k47NJdy+aXpb0uDx ZogoXi7MUbJZAeKZ3RSBSxbsgmP4upvd2sd9mRV+UTTsgCm3an9I0xDSGo52XfqbIKwKCcEq3 nma/39MnhfTBhlV3Yu4NWwoGyuQySJKaRz0DwOK9dkCfbOw8ISdVozatbWLLTzu6qa749utNn PGjjp+WUmroZDkf9YlO96/NUAC3qWhH2LJf0rfNOK57Qi1lzRuCtRgp8jDJ2/HICAVz+42STk qt1EWyEmKim+LfTllJAXbbTA/9M2fKkvqCCAgRS3MCT4SYZA7e4YsqyIjJDjy/1ytELxyAZ2e eH3UibEpYT1lzmuBR9QsJczV3xPskhrmVdIGmgs3cPkKIHMxVzlbVFfBnqwklELalbrkVwyIb fEZZb/RgMwR7m0D3rykGfTqhCbhYkN6Yj1d38IV3GlfVCSyIliFrax12m4MFxKBlIj65IbcIo eb7WXAqPaLpTQiJAeLo7iEQsQnQ5IzWn4Xd1znB8S71qKCKNNzkx192FYEH7HDM0SeCAiqjw4 l1tpvoopZErPsolMe3Bl+Y3Sks7qZjjFFFy2cUuMYafxUjkj56EHDbf9obGHWsx4sw5V2/FsZ yhI9aWyumU7oHZm1/lepDOd/rtsJgwbjUVj/5XYmFTBeDZuZCqPC2YlKtAo1ZOaCcXyhHwu8V SRh4VmFptoIEcejKorHH8cRfcLxVCi4PJ5mUdSCUZQALPRpB48rIIkLNOMKoPbiNlYbjt4Z30 /iDt6TJeGATZvnSHPSPBzyXmo92OHu3aBAOtoJv2e1Ehnh267GBacczI910BPlzvZ4kFOEOUS Izg2WYqo0ipYb8Noe+XJqNQ3bV4+FOcZCaPu+FwvrviwoPCzVyBs1IqedePJksmTEkj8TkOtt NWmVQVPeJ99piJwLPHIbgU8WGWvFj+mULf812NEL3pSBWQPEXrax5E+NT+E+/t3taEikmt3nE PmyjBSsB0MBr2O6MwX/ueNaI2P Subject: Re: str_repeat performance From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") On 10.09.2022 at 14:19, Eugene Sidelnyk wrote: > I have noted some strange points about `str_repeat` performance. It look= s > like the lesser `$times` argument is, the bigger is execution time (only= if > we consider big numbers). > > For example, `str_repeat('%d ', 12500);` is a lot slower than > `str_repeat('%d ', 1250000)`. > > First case (slow one): > https://3v4l.org/ZAoGi > > Second case (fast one): > https://3v4l.org/YIdQM It seems you have misinterpreted the results. 4.792213439941406E-5 is certainly much smaller than 0.013129949569702148, for instance. =2D- Christoph M. Becker