Re: include vs require

I haven't analyzed it in detail, but switching it in a Yahoo! app gave me another couple of requests per second. I'll add it to my strace stuff and have a closer look sometime in the next couple of days. Perhaps someone did sneak something nasty in there. Our syscall bloat has been really bad lately. -Rasmus On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote: > Really? I find it hard to believe that the overhead is notceable > (watch me bandy about such claims with no supporting evidence). The > relative overhead of require_once should be close to zero. If it's > noticeable at all, there is probably something wrong with the > implementation - you should not be able to notice a single hash table > lookup. > > The only reason I'm writing is that I think their is something.rather > hyperbolic about the statement that require is 'faster' than > require_once. Folklore on php performance tuning has a way of > spreading like a social disease and I can foresee people going back to > using include guards in their scripts (more expensive) to avoid the > 'expense' of require_once. > > George > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:37 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > I didn't say the overhead was huge, just that it was there. ;) > > And it is measurable. > > > > -Rasmus > > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, George Schlossnagle wrote: > > > >> Yeah... besides the hash table lookup, what exactly is the overhead? > >> They both end up calling zend_fopen, which is the 'expense' of the > >> vacuous call. Am I missing something significant? The overhead seems > >> miniscule (it doesn't look like any additional system calls should be > >> made, just some O(1) userspace stuff.) > >> > >> George > >> > >> On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 05:19 PM, Tim Thorpe wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not trying to start another IT[X] flamewar here. I'm just > >>> pointing > >>> out that as PEAR grows, the probability of two simultaneously used > >>> libraries having a common dependency increases. A minor sacrifice to > >>> overhead seems a worthy cause if it will prevent (even small) > >>> headaches > >>> down the road. *don't flame me* :) > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:51 PM > >>> To: Tim Thorpe > >>> Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > >>> Subject: RE: [PEAR-DEV] include vs require > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Tim Thorpe wrote: > >>> > >>>> It was my understanding that require_once was made part of the PEAR > >>>> coding standard to prevent files from being re-included when > >>>> dependencies got hairy. > >>> > >>> Correct. But if the dependencies are not hairy, then it is pure > >>> overhead. > >>> > >>> -Rasmus > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > >>> To unsubscribe, visit: > >>> http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >> > > > > -- > > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > >