Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:5504 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84264 invoked by uid 1010); 17 Nov 2003 00:53:15 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 84230 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2003 00:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matrix.gna.ch) (195.226.6.8) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2003 00:53:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by matrix.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A0F162; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:53:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by matrix.gna.ch (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 321EE161; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:53:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from cschneid.com (unknown [195.226.4.61]) by matrix.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D55115B; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:53:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FB81BF6.10802@cschneid.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:53:10 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031009 X-Accept-Language: de-ch, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Schlossnagle Cc: Sebastian Bergmann , internals@lists.php.net References: <3FB800C0.80701@cschneid.com> <2691E768-1897-11D8-BC34-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com> In-Reply-To: <2691E768-1897-11D8-BC34-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.7.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on matrix.gna.ch X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS Ultramail snapshot-20020531 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Benchmark From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) George Schlossnagle wrote: > I think you miss the point. Comprehesive benchmarks are nice so that > you can evaluate the effects of and prevent performance accidents often > associated withnew changes. It's not groundbreaking stuff, but it's I'm just not convinced that these little microbenchmarks are very helpful. To achieve your goal I suggest someone builds benchmarking into the regression tests, i.e. 'make benchmark-tests' or the like, outputting a machine readable format. It would then be possible to automatically compare two versions on a much wider range, allow graphing, alerts if something is much slower etc. Now _that_ sounds interesting for QA. - Chris