You mention that you could have written the PHP code in a more efficient way using continue(). Why not time this as surely a built in function would be quicker than one written in the code.
"Daniel Grace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > This all started in a little debate between me and a friend of mine who I > think is as much a PERL zealot as I am a PHP zealot (I was briefly pondering > the idea of a Win32 API extension for PHP), and the results were rather > surprising -- to me, at least.. > > It all started when I asked him what PERL had that PHP didn't in terms of > language (not taking community, modules, etc. into an account). We both > believed that the two would be very similiar in speed -- he thought PERL > would be a little faster but not enough to be noticeable. For the first > test, I went with a program that computed prime numbers between 2 and 10000, > using no form of caching or anything like that. I gave him the PHP source > with the task of writing something in PERL as close to the original PHP > source as possible. The results: > > (note: I didn't know if PERL had PHP's continue(2), hence why I used the > slightly less efficient method here:) > > prime.php: > #!/usr/bin/php -q > <?php > > echo "2\n"; > > for($check = 3 ; $check < 10000 ; $check += 2) { > $prime = 1; > $half = (int) $check / 2; > for($against = 2 ; $against <= $half ; ++$against) { > if(!($check % $against)) { > $prime = 0; > break; > } > } > if($prime) echo "$check\n"; > } > > > prime.pl: > #!/usr/bin/perl > # print "2\n"; > my $num; > for ($num = 3; $num < 10000; $num+=2) > { > my $prime = 1; > for $check ( 2 .. int($num/2) ) > { > if ($num % $check == 0) > { > $prime = 0; > last; > } > } > # print "$num\n" if $prime; > } > > > The test machine is an AMD Duron 700 MHz using an a-bit KT7A motherboard > with 256 MB of PC100 SDRAM. uname -a reports "Linux ulysses.venura.net > 2.4.17-ulysses1 #1 Sat Dec 29 14:44:46 PST 2001 i686 unknown", PHP 4.2.1 was > configured with --enable-inline-optimization --prefix=[somepath], PERL 5.6.1 > was configured with -O3 (among other options) (PHP compiles with -g -O2 with > no 'easy' (at-configure-time) way to change that, to my knowledge). > > Both programs were ran once normally to verify they actually generated prime > numbers, and then the bash "time" command was used to time them, piping > their output to /dev/null to prevent that from being a factor. I re-ran the > tests a few times with results consistently similiar to those listed here: > > The results: > > [dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.php > /dev/null > > real 0m14.465s > user 0m8.610s > sys 0m0.070s > > [dewin@ulysses profiling]$ time ./prime.pl > /dev/null > > real 0m5.302s > user 0m3.180s > sys 0m0.000s > > > > A second system, with PHP compiled the same way and a PERL 5.6.1 binary > distributed by Red Hat, 1.2 ghz with 442 MB of RAM: > > [root@mrr-016 law]# time ./prime.pl > /dev/null > real 0m2.078s > user 0m2.040s > sys 0m0.010s > > [root@mrr-016 law]# time ./prime.php > /dev/null > real 0m5.512s > user 0m5.430s > sys 0m0.010s > > > Comments? I was expecting the numbers to be very similiar -- rather shocked > that the PERL ended up being about 2.5x as fast as PHP was. > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
