Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118602
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM0CcxiQPd03nLuMFkKEaHtPGbaYHTTStvTun6PUh7bWhSeb6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ba19901-2a14-3869-0c65-5b4bfed5bcb5@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <3ba19901-2a14-3869-0c65-5b4bfed5bcb5@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 18:10:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM0CcxhN0RDgZv=5nAkW=ojzOnYT85bA=ycxg+tJWr5nQt8wxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aaff2605e85411e9"
Subject: Re: str_repeat performance
From: zsidelnik@gmail.com (Eugene Sidelnyk)

--000000000000aaff2605e85411e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Oh, yes. Sorry for that.

Thanks for pointing out.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 3:23 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 10.09.2022 at 14:19, Eugene Sidelnyk wrote:
>
> > I have noted some strange points about `str_repeat` performance. It looks
> > 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.
>
> --
> Christoph M. Becker
>
>

--000000000000aaff2605e85411e9--