Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:28978 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31380 invoked by uid 1010); 24 Apr 2007 13:41:26 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 31364 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 13:41:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 13:41:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mauroi@digbang.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mauroi@digbang.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain digbang.com from 200.127.112.162 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mauroi@digbang.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 200.127.112.162 unknown Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [200.127.112.162] ([200.127.112.162:57688] helo=gucci.intranet.db) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 06/22-08886-3090E264 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:41:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:41:18 -0300 Message-ID: <904D7EDB2B0594459E78E9605CB3D86961C63E@gucci.intranet.db> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Performance problem in Windows between 5.1 & 5.2 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-Index: AceGdjx5eTvhKXOvQQy6IYg3SsYhlQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 To: Subject: Performance problem in Windows between 5.1 & 5.2 From: mauroi@digbang.com ("Mauro Infantino") Hi all, I'm using PHP 5.1.6 & 5.2.1. Is there any known performance issue with PHP 5.2.1? With the same script, same php.ini, same extensions, same apache (of = course), I'm getting a huge difference. For example, with a microtime difference between start & end I get: - PHP 5.1.6: 111ms avg. - PHP 5.2.1: 205ms avg. Also, If I compare the results from the xdebug profiling extension it = gets worse (322ms vs. 22ms). I can send the zipfile (69k) containing the = two cachegrind files if needed. The code is a little complicated because = it uses our framework with an autoprepended file and using __autoload, = but you'll see that the function calls are exactly the same. Thanks in advance. Mauro Nicol=E1s Infantino Vera 568 - BA - Argentina :: 54 11 4857 6585 :: www.digbang.com=20