# PHP Benchmark

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/5481
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/5481
- Started by Sebastian Bergmann on 2003-11-15T07:13:27+00:00
- Messages: 5
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #5481 — Sebastian Bergmann — 2003-11-15T07:13:27+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/5481#5481

A while ago I posted [1] a script that performed some micro-benchmarks
  on PHP.

  I have now refined this benchmark by splitting the monolithic script
  into one script per micro-benchmark thus performing each benchmark with
  a fresh PHP interpreter.

  The benchmark "suite" is available at

    http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/PHP_Benchmark/

  Any comments, feedback, corrections and additions are welcome,
Sebastian

  --
  [1] http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/blog/archives/104_PHP_MicroBenchmarkSuite.html

-- 
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/                   http://phpOpenTracker.de/

Das Buch zu PHP 5: http://professionelle-softwareentwicklung-mit-php5.de/

---

## #5500 — Christian Schneider — 2003-11-16T22:57:04+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/5481#5500 · In reply to: #5481

Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>     http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/PHP_Benchmark/
>   Any comments, feedback, corrections and additions are welcome,

You've done a good job but we basically only see two things:
a) PHP4 is an order of a magniture faster than PHP3.
b) PHP5 is about the same speed as PHP4.

No big surprises there, let's move on...

Regards,
- Chris

---

## #5503 — George Schlossnagle — 2003-11-17T00:44:07+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/5481#5503 · In reply to: #5500

> Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > […]
>
> You've done a good job but we basically only see two things:
> a) PHP4 is an order of a magniture faster than PHP3.
> b) PHP5 is about the same speed as PHP4.
>
> No big surprises there, let's move on...

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 
very beneficial to have and to run often.

George

---

## #5504 — Christian Schneider — 2003-11-17T00:53:10+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/5481#5504 · In reply to: #5503

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

---

## #5506 — George Schlossnagle — 2003-11-17T00:56:31+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/5481#5506 · In reply to: #5504

>
> 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.

That sounds like good feedback to me. :)

George