Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86471
Return-Path: <bishop.bettini@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 56576 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2015 03:30:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2015 03:30:09 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bishop.bettini@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.52 mail-la0-f52.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.215.52] ([209.85.215.52:32785] helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 78/A1-45124-0C47E655 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:30:08 -0400
Received: by labpy14 with SMTP id py14so128224803lab.0
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=IsDpQ/NhcIDxaVwKdHRJQF8H8ySQQuXzn7JiybK6TME=;
        b=lHjClouoNFQgjfk7wcKg55Vop6rbZrHA8A/lA0HTDGVd1XYVGHZqj9o3apHB+AWwuD
         p/QPOo0/qHUlWI9FWgMXTY6lVuhAe+JUNkDjsPg+u/X3/c+TvkzyReHfT9wA86WkA6zE
         o3VgzaaupQg+27/qLrcCDRAOqnWgWQoLxIa5nV64tj6Paf6dG7xOuKnRbrzmI3ceUXsL
         i1MF6VU/Ka7wT3JgFYtpMF6NYLOqjSaWsqvUd19U8e4BUEfmDdzJZ45Vb1KQD98bw12X
         msFegkuOu5L8pDw6AJ+GolZpZg4Uh2BOOnKMKkdOa2GvrSmzlhR7LMiLZFuTHC6GwurR
         coTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.219.70 with SMTP id pm6mr29035914lbc.41.1433302205298;
 Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: bishop@php.net
Sender: bishop.bettini@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.6.197 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:30:05 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4ElzPPiumPuAgfezMDPgpyLuUBs
Message-ID: <CAEYWF=4Gn=6OcPWc3w2k6G7DWrqaUfS4QdohjhiSG+2vH8euyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ccd8cd7ecc051794ac5d
Subject: Method call overhead
From: bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini)

--001a11c3ccd8cd7ecc051794ac5d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi!

I've measured the overhead for method calls in a variety of environments
(Amazon, Travis, and 3v4l).  The results are reliable and here's 3v4l
<http://3v4l.org/NsjJR>.

Some observations.  First, as expected, direct calls are faster than static
object calls, which are faster than object calls.  Second, in absolute
times PHP7 outperforms HHVM3 substantially.  Kudos, really impressive.

My question though is on relative times.  Method call overhead is
consistently 50% to 150% over a direct call.  Is my experiment invalid, or
is this overhead expected?  Is the overhead in the allocation,
deallocation, GC?

Cheers,
bishop

--001a11c3ccd8cd7ecc051794ac5d--