I have a PHP script I'd like to compile into a standalone command-line executable for running on Linux.
Is this realistic? Are there compilers for this?
I know that there are PHP compilers around, but my question is oriented more to whether it is of advantage, and which is the best compiler to use.
Will it be faster or slower than running it through PHP? If it would speed up my script then that would be great, since it does a lot of processing (lots of loops and math) and takes an hour to run.
My understanding is that HipHop compiles to C++, not C, and that the process is quite easy. FaceBook has applied it to vast amounts of code.
I'm not sure you get a .exe, but OP only wants "faster". He might get quite a good speedup; HipHop compiled-code averages only a factor of 2 or so faster, but that's because much of PHP execution is really library calls. He might get pretty good speedup on his computation part, if the HipHop compiler can figure out what the data types are in the computation code. He might have to modify his code somewhat to make this clear to the HipHop compiler, by not using his computation varaibles for anything but computation but that should be only a minor source code change. I'd expect the HipHop site to contain hints about what to do to speed up HipHop compiled code along these lines.
All of this is educated guess based on what I understand and not actual experience. YMMV.
Well, compiling itself will add very little if your script runs for hours.
The best solution would be to use another language, C seems woud be the best choice.
you can try to translate your PHP to C using hiphop compiler but it is not the task I'd call easy
Related
I've been reading a lot about Facebook's PHP HipHop project, but one thing I can't seem to figure out (I don't have a 64 bit machine to test HipHop on) is whether or not one could use HipHop as simply a project conversion tool, rather than just to compile a binary.
Essentially if one were so inclined to try to convert a PHP CLI application to C++ using HipHop, would it therefore be possible to just maintain it in C++ in the future, rather than having to use HipHop every time?
I expect that automatically translated code will be harder to maintain than handwritten code. It will be generated by a computer so you can get rid of things like loops in many places. A lot of things might be sub optimal (direct translation cannot always accommodate for idioms) and after hand tweaking this for a while, it will be a mix of styles (auto generated and hand written) which will be a maintenance nightmare.
Essentially, you should treat this C++ code just like a binary after a regular compilation. Would you bit tweak that to add new functionality? No, you'd edit the source and then recompile it. That's what you should do here as well. The C++ is generated and an intermediate representation. The fact that it's in a human readable language shouldn't tempt you to modify it.
The source C++ generated by HipHop is perfectly capable of being modified. People do use HipHop for this. It would not make sense to expand greatly on HipHop generated C++ since it is not so easy to follow as hand-written code (or anywhere near as efficient), but for small changes (perhaps optimizing) it can be done.
Also HipHop can be used to generated a base which you can then completely rewrite if you wanted to convert a PHP script to C++. You can start by looking at the HipHop generated code to help you rewrite the entire thing by hand.
I'm a php developer as well as cpp developer. I was wondering: if I make a cpp binary and I run it on php. Will that make my process run faster?
For example:
I have to compare 1,000 array elements and execute a process for each of them and in some cases I had to run it over and over again ( recursively) . Yes is messup but it works !.
Yes, this might be faster. It's also very hard to do right (lots of corner cases in IPC).
Don't try this unless it's absolutely necessary for performance. First try to improve the algorithm in PHP.
Don't use the C++ code in production until you've measured the difference, and the C++ solution is significantly faster.
Don't run a binary, write a library and link it into the PHP interpreter. PHP is implemented in C, so export your C++ functions to C using extern "C".
I never did that in php, but in python I can tell you that it's a hell of a good way to squeeze performance. But don't overdo it: just implement in C what you know is a bottleneck, otherwise you will just create a monster.
Be sure to profile your code first and make sure you've actually identified the bottleneck. If its working now, it should be easy to include XDebug in your code so that you can measure its performance and profile your function calls. Maybe your function call isn't the bottleneck, in which case all your work would be wasted.
After that, see if there are any architectural issues before you switch languages. If there is a scalability problem, switching over to a faster language will just delay the issue.
I know you can minify PHP, but I'm wondering if there is any point. PHP is an interpreted language so will run a little slower than a compiled language. My question is: would clients see a visible speed improvement in page loads and such if I were to minify my PHP?
Also, is there a way to compile PHP or something similar?
PHP is compiled into bytecode, which is then interpreted on top of something resembling a VM. Many other scripting languages follow the same general process, including Perl and Ruby. It's not really a traditional interpreted language like, say, BASIC.
There would be no effective speed increase if you attempted to "minify" the source. You would get a major increase by using a bytecode cache like APC.
Facebook introduced a compiler named HipHop that transforms PHP source into C++ code. Rasmus Lerdorf, one of the big PHP guys did a presentation for Digg earlier this year that covers the performance improvements given by HipHop. In short, it's not too much faster than optimizing code and using a bytecode cache. HipHop is overkill for the majority of users.
Facebook also recently unveiled HHVM, a new virtual machine based on their work making HipHop. It's still rather new and it's not clear if it will provide a major performance boost to the general public.
Just to make sure it's stated expressly, please read that presentation in full. It points out numerous ways to benchmark and profile code and identify bottlenecks using tools like xdebug and xhprof, also from Facebook.
2021 Update
HHVM diverged away from vanilla PHP a couple versions ago. PHP 7 and 8 bring a whole bunch of amazing performance improvements that have pretty much closed the gap. You now no longer need to do weird things to get better performance out of PHP!
Minifying PHP source code continues to be useless for performance reasons.
Forgo the idea of minifying PHP in favor of using an opcode cache, like PHP Accelerator, or APC.
Or something else like memcached
Yes there is one (non-technical) point.
Your hoster can spy your code on his server. If you minify and uglify it, it is for spys more difficult to steal your ideas.
One reason for minifying and uglifying php may be spy-protection. I think uglyfing code should one step in an automatic deployment.
With some rewriting (shorter variable names) you could save a few bytes of memory, but that's also seldomly significant.
However I do design some of my applications in a way that allows to concatenate include scripts together. With php -w it can be compacted significantly, adding a little speed gain for script startup. On an opcode-enabled server this however only saves a few file mtime checks.
This is less an answer than an advertisement. I'm been working on a PHP extension that translates Zend opcodes to run on a VM with static typing. It doesn't accelerate arbitrary PHP code. It does allow you to write code that run way faster than what regular PHP allows. The key here is static typing. On a modern CPU, a dynamic language eats branch misprediction penalty left and right. Fact that PHP arrays are hash tables also imposes high cost: lot of branch mispredictions, inefficient use of cache, poor memory prefetching, and no SIMD optimization whatsoever. Branch misprediction and cache misses in particular are achilles' heel for today's processors. My little VM sidesteps those problem by using static types and C array instead of hash table. The result ends up running roughly ten times faster. This is using bytecode interpretation. The extension can optionally compile a function through gcc. In that case, you get two to five times more speed.
Here's the link for anyone interested:
https://github.com/chung-leong/qb/wiki
Again, the extension is not a general PHP accelerator. You have to write code specific for it.
There are PHP compilers... see this previous question for a list; but (unless you're the size of Facebook or are targetting your application to run client-side) they're generally a lot more trouble than they're worth
Simple opcode caching will give you more benefit for the effort involved. Or profile your code to identify the bottlenecks, and then optimise it.
You don't need to minify PHP.
In order to get a better performance, install an Opcode cache; but the ideal solution would be to upgrade your PHP to the 5.5 version or above because the newer versions have an opcode cache by default called Zend Optimiser that is performing better than the other ones http://massivescale.blogspot.com/2013/06/php-55-zend-optimiser-opcache-vs-xcache.html.
The "point" is to make the file smaller, because smaller files load faster than bigger files. Also, removing whitespace will make parsing a tiny bit faster since those characters don't need to be parsed out.
Will it be noticeable? Almost never, unless the file is huge and there's a big difference in size.
This is something I've always wondered: Why is PHP slower than Java or C#, if all 3 of these languages get compiled down to bytecode and then executed from there? I know that normally PHP recompiles each file with each request, but even when you bring APC (a bytecode cache) into the picture, the performance is nowhere near that of Java or C# (although APC greatly improves it).
Edit:
I'm not even talking about these languages on the web level. I am talking about the comparison of them when they're number crunching. Not even including startup time or anything like that.
Also, I am not making some kind of decision based on the replies here. PHP is my language of choice; I was simply curious about its design.
One reason is the lack of a JIT compiler in PHP, as others have mentioned.
Another big reason is PHP's dynamic typing. A dynamically typed language is always going to be slower than a statically typed language, because variable types are checked at run-time instead of compile-time. As a result, statically typed languages like C# and Java are going to be significantly faster at run-time, though they typically have to be compiled ahead of time. A JIT compiler makes this less of an issue for dynamically typed languages, but alas, PHP does not have one built-in. (Edit: PHP 8 will come with a built-in JIT compiler.)
I'm guessing you are a little bit into the comparing of apples and oranges here - assuming that you are using all these languages to create web applications there is quite a bit more to it than just the language. (And lots of the time it is the database that is slowing you down ;-)
I would never suggest choosing one of these languages over the other on the basis of a speed argument.
Both Java and C# have JIT compilers, which take the bytecode and compile into true machine code. The act of compiling it can take time, hence C# and Java can suffer from slower startup times, but once the code is JIT compiled, its performance is in the same ballpark as any "truly compiled" language like C++.
The biggest single reason is that Java's HotSpot JVM and C#'s CLR both use Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation. JIT compilation compiles the bytecodes down to native code that runs directly on the processor.
Also I think Java bytecode and CIL are lower-level than PHP's internal bytecode which might make alot of JIT optimizations easier and more effective.
A wild guess might be that JAVA depends on some kind of "application" server, while PHP doesn't -- which means a new environnement has to be created each time a PHP page is called.
(This was especially true when PHP was/is used as a CGI, and not as an Apache module or via FastCGI)
Another idea might be that C# and JAVA compilers can do some heavy optimisations at compile time -- on the other side, as PHP scripts are compiled (at least, if you don't "cheat" with an opcode cache) each time a page is called, the compilation phase has to be real quick ; which means it's not possible to spend much time optimizing.
Still : Each version of PHP generally comes with some amelioration of the performances ; for instance, you can gain between 15% and 25% of CPU, when switching from PHP 5.2 to 5.3.
For instance, take a look at those benchmarks :
Benchmark of PHP Branches 3.0 through 5.3-CVS
Performance PHP 5.2 vs PHP 5.3 - huge gain
Bench PHP 5.2 vs PHP 5.3 -- disclaimer : it's in french, and I'm the one who did it.
One important thing, also, is that PHP is quite easy to scale : just add a couple of web servers, and voila !
The problem you often meet when going from 1 to several servers is with sessions -- store those in DB or memcached (very easy), and problem solved !
As a sidenote : I would not recommend choosing a technology because there is a couple of percent difference of speed on some benchmark : there are far more important factors, like how well your team know each technology -- or, even, the algorithms you are going to use !
There is no way an interpreted language can be faster than a compiled language or even a JIT language under trivial conditions.
Unless your test program consists of printing out "Hello Worlds" if you are concerned about speed, stick with C# or Java.
Depends on what you want to do. In some cases, PHP is definitely faster. PHP is (pretty) good at file manipulation and other basic stuff (also XML stuff). Java or C# might be slower in those cases (though I didn't benchmark).
Also, the PHP output (HTML or whatever) needs to be downloaded to the browser, which also consumes time.
Also, the speed of Java / C# is very much depending on the machine it runs on (which could be multiple). Java / C# could be slow on your computer, while PHP just runs on one server from which it is available and is always as fast as the server is (except for download times, etc.).
I don't think they are comparable in a general manner. I think you need to take a task, which you could be accomplished with those three programming languages, and then compare that. That is basically always what you should do when choosing a programming language; find the one that fits the task. Don't shape the task until it fits the programming language.
According to wikipedia, PHP uses The Zend Engine, which does not have a JIT.
If I write a hello world app using a PHP web framework such as CodeIgniter and then I compile it and run it using HipHop. Will it run faster than if I write the same hello world app in django or rails?
HIPHOP converts php code into C++ code, which needs to be compiled to run. Since pre-compiled code runs faster and uses less memory then scriping languages like python/php it will probably run faster in the example you have given.
However, HIPHOP does not convert all code. A lot of code in php is dynamic and can not be changed to c++, this means you will have to write your code with this in mind. If codeigniter can even be compiled using HIPHOP is another question.
Terry Chay wrote a big article about HIPHOP, covering when to use it, it's limitations and future. I would recomment reading this, as it will most likely answer most of your questions and give you some insight into how it works :)
http://terrychay.com/article/hiphop-for-faster-php.shtml
At that point the run time is inconsequential. HipHop was designed for scaling... meaning billions of requests. There's absolutely no need to use something like HipHop for even a medium size website.
But more to the point of your question... I don't think there have been comparison charts available for us to see, but I doubt the run time would be faster at that level.
i don't know about django or rails, so this is a bit off-topic.
with plain php, the request goes to apache, then to mod_php. mod_php loads the helloworld.php script from disk, parses & tokenizes it, compiles it to bytecode, then interprets the bytecode, passes the output back to apache, apache serves it to the user.
with php and an optimizer the first run is about the same as with plain php, but the compiled source code is stored in ram. then, for the second request: goes to apache, apache to mod_php, apc loads bytecode from ram, interprets it, passes it back to apache, back to the user.
with hiphop there is no apache, but hiphop itself and there's no interpreter, so request goes directly to hiphop and back to the user. so yes, it's faster, because of several reasons:
faster startup because there's no bytecode compilation needed - the program is already in machine-readable code. so no per-request compilation and no source file reading.
no interpreter. machine code is not necessarily faster - that depends on the quality of source translation (hiphop) and the quality of the static compiler (g++). hiphop translated code is not fast compared to hand-written c code, because there's a bit of overhead because of type handling and such.
with node.js, there's also no apache. the script is started and directly compiled to machine code (because the V8 compiler does that), so it's kind of AOT (ahead of time) compiling (or is it still called JIT? i don't really know). every request is then directly handled by the already compiled machine code; so node.js is actually very comparable to hiphop. i assume hiphop to be multithreaded or something like this, while node does evented IO.
facebook claims a 50% speed gain, which is not really that much; if you compare the results of the language shootout, you'll see for the execution speed of assorted algorithms, php is 5 to 250 times slower.
so why only 50%? because ...
web apps depend on much more than just execution speed, e.g. IO
php's type system prevents hiphop to make the best use of c++'s static types
in practice, a lot of php is already C, because most of the functionality is either built in or comes from extensions. extensions are programmed in C and statically compiled.
i'm not sure if there was a huge performance gain for hello world, because hello world, even with a good framework, is still so small execution speed could be negligible in comparison to all the other overhead (network latency and stuff).
imo: if you want speed and ease of use, go for node.js :)
Running a simple application is always faster in any language. When it's become as complex as facebook, then you will face numerous of problems. PHP slowness will be show it's face. In same times, converting existing code to another language is not an options, since all logic and code is not so easy to translated to other language's syntax. That's why facebook developer decide to keep the old code, and make PHP faster. That's the reason they create their own PHP compiler, called HipHop.
Read this story from the perspective one of Facebook developer, so you know the history of HipHop.
That is not really an apple to apples comparison. In the most level playing field you might have something like:
Django running behind apache
Django rendering an HTML template to say hello world (no caching)
AND
HPHP running behind apache
HPHP rendring an HTML template to say hello world (again, no caching)
There is no database, almost no file I/O, and no caching. If you hit the page 10,000 times with a load generator at varying concurrency levels you will probably find that HPHP will outperform Django or rails - that is to say it can serve render more pages per second and keep up with your traffic a bit better.
The question is, will you ever have this many concurrent users? If you will, will they likely be hitting a database or a cached page?
HPHP sounds cool, but IMHO there is no reason to jump ship just yet (unless you are getting lots of traffic, in which case it might make sense to check it out).
Will it run faster than if I write the
same hello world app in django or
rails?
It probably will, but don't fret. If we're talking prospective speed improvements from yet unreleased projects, Pythonistas have pypy-jit and unladen-swallow to look forward to ;)