On Monday 29 November 2010,
Per Jessen wrote:
> Daniel Molina Wegener wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 November 2010,
> >
> > Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP
> >> code. One of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the
> >> process is
Daniel Molina Wegener wrote:
> On Sunday 28 November 2010,
> Larry Garfield wrote:
>
>> There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP
>> code. One of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the
>> process is loading code off of disk and compiling it, which is why
>> o
On Sunday 28 November 2010,
Larry Garfield wrote:
> There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP code.
> One of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the process is
> loading code off of disk and compiling it, which is why opcode caches
> are such a bit performance
Larry Garfield wrote:
> There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP
> code. One of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the
> process is loading code off of disk and compiling it, which is why
> opcode caches are such a bit performance boost. The corollary to
> t
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP code. One
> of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the process is loading code
> off of disk and compiling it, which is why opcode caches are such a bit
> perfor
There are many things that everybody "knows" about optimizing PHP code. One
of them is that one of the most expensive parts of the process is loading code
off of disk and compiling it, which is why opcode caches are such a bit
performance boost. The corollary to that, of course, is that more f
6 matches
Mail list logo
