str_repeat performance

1 year ago by Eugene Sidelnyk — view source

unread

Hello internals!

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

Best regards,
Yevhen

1 year ago by Christoph M. Becker — view source

unread

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

1 year ago by Eugene Sidelnyk — view source

unread

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:

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

1 year ago by Hans Henrik Bergan — view source

unread

maybe you'll find
$t=microtime(true) - $startTime;
var_dump($t,number_format($t,10));

interesting, https://3v4l.org/Ejia3

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:

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