PHPBench.com was constructed as a way to open people's eyes to the fact that not every PHP code snippet will run at the same speed. You may be surprised at the results that this page generates, but that is ok. This page was also created so that you would be able to find discovery in these statistics and then maybe re-run these tests in your own server environment to play around with this idea yourself, by using the code examples (these code examples are automatically generated and as the code in my .php files change, so do they).

NOTE: You must keep in mind to refresh this page a few times to "catch" the right result. The numbers change sometimes drastically during each refresh. I assume that this is because of PHP's memory garbage collector that drops in randomly and also other processes that run on this machine have an influence.

NOTE: The microtime() method for testing out these tests has only been utilised for simplicities sake. If anything more advanced was used, those whom are just starting out on their PHP journey would have difficulties understanding.

Using the =&-ref-operator$obj = new SomeClass() vs. $obj =& new SomeClass()

Is a good idea to use the =&-ref-operator when creating a new object? Call 1'000x

+ 100 %

$obj = new SomeClass();

Total time: 255 µsview code

+ 100 %

$obj =& new SomeClass();

Total time: 255 µsview code

Conclusion:

There seams to be no difference in performance.

Counting LoopsFor-loop test

Is it worth the effort to calculate the length of the loop in advance?

e.g. "for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++)" instead of "for ($i=0; $i<sizeOf($x); $i++)"

A loop with 1000 keys with 1 byte values are given.

+ 108 %

With pre calc - count()

Total time: 97 µsview code

+ 60438 %

Without pre calc - count()

Total time: 54324 µsview code

+ 100 %

With pre calc - sizeof()

Total time: 90 µsview code

+ 58770 %

Without pre calc - sizeof()

Total time: 52825 µsview code

Conclusion:

Unsurprising results... this is one of the easiest things to implement in any application and is the widest agreed upon benchmarking item within the online PHP community. The results basically speak for themselves.

Modify Loop: foreach() vs. for vs. while(list() = each())

What would happen if we alter the reading loop test to test the results of a loop created to simply alter the data in each of the values in the array?

Given again is a Hash array with 100 elements, 24byte key and 10k data per entry.

+ 3459 %

foreach($aHash as $key=>$val) $aHash[$key] .= "a";

Total time: 1765 µsview code

+ 147 %

while(list($key) = each($aHash)) $aHash[$key] .= "a";

Total time: 75 µsview code

+ 100 %

$key = array_keys($aHash);
$size = sizeOf($key);
for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++) $aHash[$key[$i]] .= "a";

Total time: 51 µsview code

Conclusion:

Proof in this example shows how functionally murderous the foreach() loop can be.

Using the &-ref-operator...as a so called "alias"

Is a good idea to use the &-ref-operator to substitute (or alias) a complex mutidim-array? . Call 1'000x

E.g. $person = &$aHach["country"]["zip"]["street"]["number"]["name"]

+ 260 %

$alias = $aSingleDimArray[$i]

Total time: 624 µsview code

+ 100 %

$alias = &$aSingleDimArray[$i]

Total time: 240 µsview code

+ 213 %

$alias = $aMultiDimArray[$i]["aaaaa"]["aaaaaaaaaa"]

Total time: 512 µsview code

+ 653 %

$alias = &$aMultiDimArray[$i]["aaaaa"]["aaaaaaaaaa"]

Total time: 1567 µsview code

+ 288 %

$alias = veryMultiDimArray[$i]["a"]["aa"]["aaa"]["aaaa"]["aaaaa"]

Total time: 692 µsview code

+ 1416 %

$alias = &$veryMultiDimArray[$i]["a"]["aa"]["aaa"]["aaaa"]["aaaaa"]

Total time: 3400 µsview code

Conclusion:

Whilst only using a one dimensional array, it's actually faster to use an alias, but anything larger will result in a performance drop.

Quote Typesdouble (") vs. single (') quotes

Is a there a difference in using double (") and single (') quotes for strings. Call 1'000x

+ 116 %

single (') quotes. Just an empty string: $tmp[] = '';

Total time: 136 µsview code

+ 103 %

double (") quotes. Just an empty string: $tmp[] = "";

Total time: 120 µsview code

+ 116 %

single (') quotes. 20 bytes Text : $tmp[] = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa';

Total time: 135 µsview code

+ 102 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text : $tmp[] = "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa";

Total time: 119 µsview code

+ 101 %

single (') quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a $ : $tmp[] = 'aa $ aaaa $ aaaa $ a';

Total time: 118 µsview code

+ 101 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a $ : $tmp[] = "aa $ aaaa $ aaaa $ a";

Total time: 118 µsview code

+ 100 %

double (") quotes. 20 bytes Text and 3x a \$ : $tmp[] = "aa \$ aaaa \$ aaaa \$ a";

Total time: 117 µsview code

Conclusion:

In today's versions of PHP it looks like this argument has been satisfied on both sides of the line. Lets all join together in harmony in this one!

String Outputecho vs. print

Is a there a difference between what option you use to output your content?. Called within Output Buffering 1'000x

+ 127 %

echo ''

Total time: 61 µsview code

+ 100 %

print ''

Total time: 48 µsview code

+ 207 %

echo 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Total time: 99 µsview code

+ 215 %

print 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Total time: 103 µsview code

+ 693 %

echo 'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'

Total time: 332 µsview code

+ 666 %

echo 'aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa','aaaaaaa'

Total time: 319 µsview code

+ 781 %

print 'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'.'aaaaaaa'

Total time: 374 µsview code

+ 666 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo 'aaaaaaa'.$a.'aaaaaaa'.$a

Total time: 319 µsview code

+ 870 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo 'aaaaaaa',$a,'aaaaaaa',$a

Total time: 417 µsview code

+ 743 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
print 'aaaaaaa'.$a.'aaaaaaa'.$a

Total time: 356 µsview code

+ 732 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo $a.$a.$a.$a

Total time: 351 µsview code

+ 776 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
echo $a,$a,$a,$a

Total time: 372 µsview code

+ 722 %

$a = 'aaaaaaa';
print $a,$a,$a,$a

Total time: 346 µsview code

Conclusion:

In reality the echo and print functions serve the exact purpose and therefore in the backend the exact same code applies. The one small thing to notice is that when using a comma to separate items whilst using the echo function, items run slightly faster.

Variable Type CheckingisSet() vs. empty() vs. is_array()

What is the performance of isSet() and empty(). Call 2'000x

+ 165 %

isSet() with var that was set

Total time: 129 µsview code

+ 160 %

empty() with var that was set

Total time: 125 µsview code

+ 158 %

isSet() with var that was *not* set

Total time: 123 µsview code

+ 151 %

empty() with var that was *not* set

Total time: 118 µsview code

+ 141 %

isSet() with array-var that was set

Total time: 110 µsview code

+ 141 %

empty() with array-var that was set

Total time: 110 µsview code

+ 102 %

isSet() with array-var that was *not* set

Total time: 80 µsview code

+ 100 %

empty() with array-var that was *not* set

Total time: 78 µsview code

+ 524 %

is_array() of an array

Total time: 409 µsview code

+ 639 %

is_array() of a string

Total time: 498 µsview code

+ 2296 %

is_array() of a non set value

Total time: 1790 µsview code

+ 2256 %

isSet() AND is_array() of a non set value

Total time: 1759 µsview code

Conclusion:

isSet() and empty() are identical. So alway check if val is set at all befor using type-checking. E.g. if (isSet($foo) AND is_array($foo))

Using the =&-ref-operator$obj = $someClass->f() vs. $obj =& $someClass->f()

Is a good idea to use the =&-ref-operator when calling a function in an object? Call 1'000x

+ 100 %

$obj = $someClass->f();

Total time: 336 µsview code

+ 329 %

$obj =& $someClass->f();

Total time: 1107 µsview code

Conclusion:

Unless your extremely worried about how much RAM your using, leaving the &-ref-operator out seems like the slightly faster option.

Read Loop:foreach() vs. for() vs. while(list() = each())

What is the best way to loop a hash array?

Given is a Hash array with 100 elements, 24byte key and 10k data per entry

+ 111 %

foreach($aHash as $val);

Total time: 10 µsview code

+ 639 %

while(list(,$val) = each($aHash));

Total time: 58 µsview code

+ 100 %

foreach($aHash as $key => $val);

Total time: 9 µsview code

+ 653 %

while(list($key,$val) = each($aHash));

Total time: 59 µsview code

+ 221 %

foreach($aHash as $key=>$val) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key];

Total time: 20 µsview code

+ 739 %

while(list($key) = each($aHash)) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key];

Total time: 67 µsview code

+ 297 %

Get key-/ value-array: foreach($aHash as $key[]=>$val[]);

Total time: 27 µsview code

+ 287 %

Get key-/ value-array: array_keys() / array_values()

Total time: 26 µsview code

+ 353 %

$key = array_keys($aHash);
$size = sizeOf($key);
for ($i=0; $i<$size; $i++) $tmp[] = $aHash[$key[$i]];

Total time: 32 µsview code

Conclusion:

In all cases I've found that the foreach loop is substantially faster than both the while() and for() loop procedures. One thing to note is that when using an entire loop from the start it's extremely good to use the reset() function in all examples

Given that the previous version of the tests have been very controvercial and incorrect, I must appologise for forgetting to implement the reset() function to allow the while() loops to start from the beginning instead of the end. Thanks to Anthony Bush for spotting this out.

Control Structuresswitch/case/default vs. if/elseif/else

Is a there a difference between switch and if structures?. Call 1'000x

+ 120 %

if and elseif (using ==)

Total time: 116 µsview code

+ 123 %

if, elseif and else (using ==)

Total time: 119 µsview code

+ 121 %

if and elseif (using ===)

Total time: 117 µsview code

+ 100 %

if, elseif and else (using ===)

Total time: 97 µsview code

+ 132 %

switch / case

Total time: 128 µsview code

+ 149 %

switch / case / default

Total time: 145 µsview code

Conclusion:

Using a switch/case or if/elseif is almost the same. Note that the test is unsing === (is exactly equal to) and is slightly faster then using == (is equal to).

Counting LoopsFor vs. While

Is there an actual difference between counting up between the for loop and the while loop?

+ 139 %

for($i = 0; $i < 1000000; ++$i);

Total time: 40654 µsview code

+ 100 %

$i = 0; while($i < 1000000) ++$i;

Total time: 29326 µsview code

Conclusion:

Well there you have it, the while loop 90% of the time is indeed slightly faster