That doesn't even make common sense, autoload will never be faster
then straight require if the exact same number of files are called
each time, there is less overhead.
The only way for them to get the below results would of been to
include every file in propel straight out even if it wasn't used which
is just stupid.
File per file autoload is slower, If you know a file is going to be
needed without question you will get better performance if you require
it.
The best solution is to find a middle ground, what files get called
50%+ of the time in your application and preload those, let the rest
be autoloaded.
This would give you the best of both worlds, performance and flexability.
On 1/9/07, Cameron Brunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These are tests that were done for Propel, note that propel has now
gone to requiring spl_autoload because of these results.
this is using eaccel as apc was crashing for him, php 5.0.4, october 4th
(02:38:26) let's see if it crashes my apache like APC does
(02:38:35) nope!
(02:38:41) shit
(02:38:44) it's like 3x faster
(02:39:09) even w/o doing a huge list of require's
(02:39:11) lemme test
(02:41:03) ok
(02:41:06) so with eacc
(02:41:26) .25 req/sec with no accelerator (with or w/o require list)
(02:41:30) with eacc
(02:41:39) .55 req/sec w/autoload
(02:41:45) .49 w/ list of requires
the list of requires was literally just a list of
require('filea');
require('fileb');
etc at the top of the script. Yes, require, not require_once. No i
dont have how many files it was including here in my logs however
propel includes a lot of files so it should be a reasonable
comparison.
Can we please finally come to a conclusion on this subject? Test for
yourself or use these as a reference but PLEASE stop this FUD
surrounding autoload!
Cameron
