I have main php-file with main class.
Also in this class i do
require_once("func.php");
which has many useful functions for my site.
Size of func.php is very big, because there is many functions for different actions on different pages. But I include it on every page, because including called by main class.
What I need to do for optimizing it?
Rewrite func.php to OOP and use in main class something like "$funcs->my_func()"? Will I won some performance? Functions which wasnt called would not occupy memory and CPU time?
Or I must rewrite func.php to many files and call each on specified page?
For example: for "about.php" I will include "about_func.php" with needed functions. But it isnt comfortable I think...
Please, help me :)
And sorry for my eng :)
How big is func.php? Are you sure the size is a problem.
This seems like a performance/optimization question at heart. Are you sure that optimization is warranted? Have you measured your page's performance and proved that including this big function file is to blame for its slowness?
I suggest you answer 1 & 2 to yourself before continuing. If the motivation for your question is cleaner design and modularization, then yes, I would agree that splitting a bug "utils" file into smaller files that share a responsibility or a general area of relevance is a good idea. If, on the other hand, this is a case of premature optimization, then you'd be better off leaving poor "func.php" along (hey, sometimes it's ok to have a big common utils file, as long as it's not hurting you).
Split it into oop classes and use the __autoload function of PHP5: http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.autoload.php
This wil load the classes only when needed and you don't have to worry about including all neccessary files. It won't give you any performance benefit but it's easier to manage smaller files for one purpose than a big one with several functions which are not dependent on each other.
Do you have a PHP accelerator enabled?
Zend Optimizer
eAccelerator
APC
Because they keep a "compiled" version of func.php in memory which should speed things up, without any code modifications.
Although I recommend OOP, it's not because of performance reasons.
Related
So here is what I want to do.
The first option is to write each
function in different php file each
one and then include all of them in
a php file that is called include
functions.php and whenever I create
a new page , let's say index.php I
just include "functions.php";
Why do I need to do that? Because I'll just have to include only one file and all the functions will be included. Now the problem probably will be the server load. I'm not sure how much uncalled functions affect the performance.
The second option is to create again the files I need, team them up and then whenever I need a function just call it. The drawback of this is that I'll have more work to do in order to categorize and I'll have to include a lot of files
So I want to ask, does the first option increase the cpu and memory load that much that I have to go to the second one? Are there any performance issues with the first way or the functions that are not being used are not parsed at all by the php ?
Disk is a slowest part of the server, so in this case variant "all functions in 1 file" will give you little more performance, theoretically.
But I don't recommend you to create "functions.php", better way is OOP. Create classes (objects) with methods, use autoloaders and PSR-0 standard and you will forget about "include" and "require" at all.
This is a time to remember Donald Knuth's famous quote:
Programmers waste enormous amounts of
time thinking about, or worrying
about, the speed of noncritical parts
of their programs, and these attempts
at efficiency actually have a strong
negative impact when debugging and
maintenance are considered. We should
forget about small efficiencies, say
about 97% of the time: premature
optimization is the root of all evil.
Yet we should not pass up our
opportunities in that critical 3%."
In general, your development model should be tuned to match the needs and goals of the project. After you have met the goals, you can always return to such questions as the one you asked. When you do that, your question will probably answer itself. The program structure will dictate the best way to handle your includes.
You may wish to consider using object-oriented programming (OOP) if it is applicable to your project. Whenyou use OOP, this problem may even become a non issue if your objects handle their own dependency loading.
My current workflow I include function and class files as and when I need to. However, this can get quite messy with you have quite a lot of them in which some depend on others.
So I'm considering using a head file which includes on the files in the includes directory. But my question is, are there any PHP performance issues for doing this over including as an when i need. Often times I have to use include_once, so doing 1 big include would get rid of the need for this.
The best approach would probably be autoloading. You do not need to (manually) include any class at all, then. Take a look at this. I recommend using the spl_autoload_register()-function. That would resolve dependencies on the fly. The performance of includes is really irrelevant in most cases. The slow things usually happen in other places. Using autoloading has the added benefit of lazy loading. You do not load source files that are not in use. This might even speed up your application.
Normally performance (speed) in PHP is not affected by the amount of codelines or files but of:
Access to db
Access to file system!!!
Access to third party APIs (SOAP...)
Coding style
PHP code is interpreted on the fly. If a given piece of code is not used, it will not be 'compiled' and so will not incur a performance hit.
However, all code on a given page (and its includes) goes through a syntax check so that may slow things down a little.
Certainly I would consider the includes that you have and whether or not you really need them.
There is a performance effect but it is not a very significant one. Do whatever makes it quicker and easier for you to write the code. If down the line you find that you really need that 1ms back, and you have already trimmed all of the other fat elsewhere, then go for it. Otherwise you are throwing away development time on trying to be "perfect" when it never actually makes a practical difference.
I would recommend you look at autoloading: manual. I would also recommend using spl_autoload_register over one __autoload() function as it allows for greater control with separating out modules or namespaces.
Well including files does have a hit on the performance of your app because it needs to read your app from the disk but if you stay below about 100 files this is trivial.
Btw if you don't like having to include your class files every time check out the magic method autoload:
function __autoload($class_name) {
include $class_name . '.php';
}
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.autoload.php
I used to use procedural-style PHP. Later, I used to create some classes. Later, I learned Zend Framework and started to program in OOP style. Now my programs are based on my own framework (with elements of cms, but without any design in framework), which is built on the top of the Zend Framework.
Now it consists of lots classes. But the more I program, more I'm afraid. I'm afraid that my program will be slow because of them I'm afraid to add every another one class which can help me to develop but can slow the application.
All I know is that including lots of files slows application (using eAccelerator + gathering all the code in one file can speed up application 20 times!), but I have no idea if creating new classes and objects slows PHP by itself.
Does anyone have any information about it?
This bugs me. See...procedural code is not always spaghetti code, yet the OOP fanboys always presume that it is. I've written several procedural based web apps as well as an IRC services daemon in PHP. Amazingly, it seems to outperform most of the other ones that are out there and editing it is super easy. One of my friends who generally does OOP took a look at it and said "no code has the right to be this clean"
Conversely, I wrote my own PHP framework (out of boredom) and it was done in a purely OOP manner.
A good programmer can write great procedural code without the overhead classes bring. A bad programmer who uses OOP will always write crappy OOP code that slows things down.
There is no one right answer to which is better for PHP, but rather which is better for the exact scenario.
Here's good article discussing the issue. I also have seen some anecdotal bench-marks that will put OOP PHP overhead at 10-15%
Personally I think OOP is better choice since at the end it may perform better just because it probably was better designed and thought through. Procedural code tends to be messy and hard to maintain. So at the end - it has to be how critical is performance difference for your app vs. ability to maintain, extend and simply comprehend
The most important thing to remember is, design first, optimize later. A better design, which is more maintainable, is better than spaghetti code. Otherwise, you might as well write your web app in assembler. After you're done, you can profile (instead of guess), and optimize what seems slowest.
Yes, every include makes your program slower, but there is more to it than that.
If you decompose your program, over many files, there is a point where you're including/parsing/executing the least amount of code, vs the overhead of including all those files.
Furthermore, having lots of files with little code ain't so bad, because, as you said, using things like eAccelerator, or APC, is a trivial way to get a crap ton of performance back. At the same time you get, if you believe in them, all the wonderful benefits of having and Object Oriented code base.
Also, slow on a per request basis != not scalable.
Updated
As requested, PHP is still faster at straight up array manipulation than it is classes. I vaguely remember the doctrine ORM project, and someone comparing hydration of arrays versus objects, and the arrays came out faster. It's not an order of magnitude, it is noticable, however -- this is in french, but the code and results are completely understandable.. Just a note, that doctrine uses magic methods __get, and __set a lot, and these are also slower than an explicit variable access, part of doctrine's object hydration slowness could be attributed to that, so I would treat it as a worst case scenario. Lastly, even if you're using arrays, if you have to do a lot of moving around in memory, or tonnes of tests, such as isset, or functions like 'in_array' (it's order N), you'll screw the performance benefits. Also remember that objects are just arrays underneath, the interpreter just treats them as a special. I would, personally, favour better code than a small performance increase, you'll get more benefit from having smarter algorithms.
If your project contains many files and due to the nature of PHP's file access checking and restrictions, I'd recommend to turn on realpath_cache, bump up the configuration settings to reasonable numbers, and turn off open_basedir and safe_mode. Ensure to use PHP-FPM or SuExec to run the php process under a user id which is restricted to the document root to get back the security one usually gains from open_basedir and/or safe_mode.
Here are a few pointers why this is a performance gain:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46965
http://nirlevy.blogspot.de/2009/01/slow-lstat-slow-php-slow-drupal.html
Also consider my comment on the answer from #Ólafur:
I found especially auto-loading to be the biggest slow down. PHP is extremely slow for directory lookup and file open access, the more PHP function you use during a custom auto-loader, the bigger the slow-down. You can help it a bit with turning off safe-mode (deprecated anyways) or even open-basedir (but I would not do that), but the biggest improvement comes from not using auto-loading and simply use "require_once" with complete fs pathes to require all dependencies per php file you use.
Using large frameworks for web apps that actually do not require so large number of classes for everything is probably the worst problem that many are not aware of. Strip it down at least not to include every bit of code, keep just what you need and throw the rest.
If you're using include_once() then you are causing an unnecessary slowdown, regardless of OOP design or not.
OOP will add an overhead to your code but I will bet that you will never notice it.
You may reconsider to rethink your classes structure and how do you implement them. If you said that OOP is slower you may have to redesign your classes and how do you implement them. A class is just a template of an object, any bad designed method affects all the objects of that class.
Use inheritance and polimorfism the most you can, this will effectively reduce the amount of behaviors and independent methods your classes need, but first off all you need to create a good inheritance map, abstracting your first or mother classes as much as you can.
It is not a problem about how many classes do you have, the problem is how many methods, properties or fields they have and how well are those methods structured. Inheritance reduces the amount of methods to design drammatically and the amount of code to be compiled too.
As several other people have pointed out, there is a mild overhead to OO PHP, but you can offset it by focusing your optimization effort on the core classes that your various other classes derive from. This is why C++ is becoming increasingly popular in the world of high-performance computing, traditionally the realm of C and Fortran.
Personally, I've never seen a PHP server that was CPU-constrained. Check your RAM use (you can optimize the core classes for this as well) and make sure you're not making unnecessary database calls, which are orders of magnitude more expensive than any extra CPU work you're doing.
If you design a huge OOP object hog, that does everything rather than doing functional decomposition to various classes, you will obviously fill up the memory with useless ballast code. Also, with a slow framework you will not make a simply hello World any fast. I noticed it is a kind trend (bad habit) that for one single facebook icon, people include a hole awesome font library and then next there is a search icon with fontello included. Each time they accomplish something unusual, they connect an entire framework. If you want to create a fast loading oop app use one framework only like zephir-phalcon or whatever you fancy and stick to it.
There are ways to limit the penalty from the include_once entries, and that's by having functions declared in the 'include_once' file that themselves have their code content in an 'include' statement. This will load your library of code, but only those functions actually being used will load code as it is needed. You take a second file system hit for the included code, but memory usages drop to practically nothing for the library itself, and only the code used by your program gets loaded. The hit from the second file system access can be mitigated by caching. When dealing with a large project of procedural based PHP, this provides low memory usage and fast processing. DO NOT do this with classes. This would be for a production instance, a development server will show all the penalty of hits since you don't want caching turned on.
I'm in the process of creating a PHP site. It uses multiple PHP classes, which are currently all in one PHP include.
However, I am using Aptana IDE, and the file is now starting to crash it (it's around 400 lines). So I was wondering whether there would be any negative impact of including all the files seperately.
Current:
main file:
include("includes.php");
includes.php:
contains php classes
Suggested:
mainfile: main file:
include("includes.php");
includes.php:
include("class1.php");
include("class2.php")
Multiple PHP includes are fine, and 400 lines should not be a big deal. My concern would be with the Aptana IDE before I'd even consider my code to be the problem.
Breaking up your code into multiple PHP modules helps you to take a more object-oriented approach and simplifies your code base. I recommend it.
An IDE crashing because of a 400 line file? I'd find a new IDE.
However, it is better to separate classes into separate files. Perhaps not strictly one class per file, but only closely related classes in the same file.
For just two files, the cost won't be too great ; for hundreds of files, it might be a bit more... But, then, another problem to consider is "how do I determine what goes into which file ?"
Nice answer for that is "one class per file" ; and, for those, "one directory per functionnal item"
You might want to consider using an opcode cache, if you can install extensions on your server ; for instance, I almost always work using APC (see also PHP manual), which is quite easy to install, and really good for performances (it can sometimes divide by 2 the CPU load of a server ^^ )
Just as a sidenote : if Aptana can't handle 400 lines files, you should really think about using another IDE ^^
(Eclipse PDT is not bad if you have 2 GB of RAM -- eclipse-based, like Aptana, so shouldn't be too "new")
Personally, I like to include the files separately. If you include every class on every page, it just increases parsing overhead by processing lots of code that probably isn't even used on that page along with the associated overhead of reading the files from disk, etc.
It's negative in the sence that it requires more disk I/O. However, in a production stage you should use opcode cache anyway, and this will negate much of the negative impact.
On the positive side, you will achieve a better code structure, where each class belongs to a single file. This makes testing easier, and also allows you to auto-load classes on demand, thus reading only the necessary files.
I think your includes should generally only go one 'level' deep, unless you have a really good reason otherwise. What will happen is you will end up chasing down some issue and going on wild goose chases through include files, and you might even end up using stuff like "include_once" or "require_once", which is almost certainly a code smell.
Multiple includes are the best way of well organasing your code, i recommend it as well, but in some cases, ( as mine) only the first include that gets executed i dont know why im stuck with it
I'm building a PHP site, but for now the only PHP I'm using is a half-dozen or so includes on certain pages. (I will probably use some database queries eventually.)
Are simple include() statements a concern for speed or scaling, as opposed to static HTML? What kinds of things tend to cause a site to bog down?
Certainly include() is slower than static pages. However, with modern systems you're not likely to see this as a bottleneck for a long time - if ever. The benefits of using includes to keep common parts of your site up to date outweigh the tiny performance hit, in my opinion (having different navigation on one page because you forgot to update it leads to a bad user experience, and thus bad feelings about your site/company/whatever).
Using caching will really not help either - caching code is going to be slower than just an include(). The only time caching will benefit you is if you're doing computationally-intensive calculations (very rare, on web pages), or grabbing data from a database.
Sounds like you are participating in a bit of premature optimization. If the application is not built, while performance concerns are good to be aware of, your primary concern should be getting the app written.
Includes are a fact of life. Don't worry about number, worry about keeping your code well organized (PEAR folder structure is a lovely thing, if you don't know what I'm talking about look at the structure of the Zend Framework class files).
Focus on getting the application written with a reasonable amount of abstraction. Group all of your DB calls into a class (or classes) so that you minimize code duplication (KISS principles and all) and when it comes time to refactor and optimize your queries they are centrally located. Also get started on some unit testing to prevent regression.
Once the application is up and running, don't ask us what is faster or better since it depends on each application what your bottleneck will be. It may turn out that even though you have lots of includes, your loops are eating up your time, or whatever. Use XDebug and profile your code once its up and running. Look for the segments of code that are eating up a disproportionate amount of time then refactor. If you focus too much now on the performance hit between include and include_once you'll end up chasing a ghost when those curl requests running in sync are eating your breakfast.
Though in the mean time, the best suggestions are look through the php.net manual and make sure if there's a built in function doing something you are trying to do, use it! PHP's C-based extensions will always be faster than any PHP code that you could write, and you'll be surprised how much of what you are trying to do is done already.
But again, I cannot stress this enough, premature optimization is BAD!!! Just get your application up off the ground with good levels of abstraction, profile it, then fix what actually is eating up your time rather than fixing what you think might eat up your time.
Strictly speaking, straight HTML will always serve faster than a server-side approach since the server doesn't have to do any interpretation of the code.
To answer the bigger question, there are a number of things that will cause your site to bog down; there's just no specific threshold for when your code is causing the problem vs. PHP. (keep in mind that many of Yahoo's sites are PHP-driven, so don't think that PHP can't scale).
One thing I've noticed is that the PHP-driven sites that are the slowest are the ones that include more than is necessary to display a specific page. OSCommerce (oscommerce.com) is one of the most popular PHP-driven shopping carts. It has a bad habit, however, of including all of their core functionality (just in case it's needed) on every single page. So even if you don't need to display an 'info box', the function is loaded.
On the other hand, there are many PHP frameworks out there (such as CakePHP, Symfony, and CodeIgniter) that take a 'load it as you need it' approach.
I would advise the following:
Don't include more functionality than you need for a specific page
Keep base functions separate (use an MVC approach when possible)
Use require_once instead of include if you think you'll have nested includes (e.g. page A includes file B which includes file C). This will avoid including the same file more than once. It will also stop the process if a file can't be found; thus helping your troubleshooting process ;)
Cache static pages as HTML if possible - to avoid having to reparse when things don't change
Nah includes are fine, nothing to worry about there.
You might want to think about tweaking your caching headers a bit at some point, but unless you're getting significant hits it should be no problem. Assuming this is all static data, you could even consider converting the whole site to static HTML (easiest way: write a script that grabs every page via the webserver and dumps it out in a matching dir structure)
Most web applications are limited by the speed of their database (or whatever their external storage is, but 9/10 times that'll be a database), the application code is rarely cause for concern, and it doesn't sound like you're doing anything you need to worry about yet.
Before you make any long-lasting decisions about how to structure the code for your site, I would recommend that you do some reading on the Model-View-Controller design pattern. While there are others this one appears to be gaining a great deal of ground in web development circles and certainly will be around for a while. You might want to take a look at some of the other design patterns suggested by Martin Fowler in his Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture before making any final decisions about what sort of design will best fit your needs.
Depending on the size and scope of your project, you may want to go with a ready-made framework for PHP like Zend Framework or PHP On Trax or you may decide to build your own solution.
Specifically regarding the rendering of HTML content I would strongly recommend that you use some form of templating in order to keep your business logic separate from your display logic. I've found that this one simple rule in my development has saved me hours of work when one or the other needed to be changed. I've used http://www.smarty.net/">Smarty and I know that most of the frameworks out there either have a template system of their own or provide a plug-in architecture that allows you to use your own preferred method. As you look at possible solutions, I would recommend that you look for one that is capable of creating cached versions.
Lastly, if you're concerned about speed on the back-end then I would highly recommend that you look at ways to minimize your calls your back-end data store (whether it be a database or just system files). Try to avoid loading and rendering too much content (say a large report stored in a table that contains hundreds of records) all at once. If possible look for ways to make the user interface load smaller bits of data at a time.
And if you're specifically concerned about the actual load time of your html content and its CSS, Javascript or other dependencies I would recommend that you review these suggestions from the guys at Yahoo!.
To add on what JayTee mentioned - loading functionality when you need it. If you're not using any of the frameworks that do this automatically, you might want to look into the __autoload() functionality that was introduced in PHP5 - basically, your own logic can be invoked when you instantiate a particular class if it's not already loaded. This gives you a chance to include() a file that defines that class on-demand.
The biggest thing you can do to speed up your application is to use an Opcode cache, like APC. There's an excellent list and description available on Wikipedia.
As far as simple includes are concerned, be careful not to include too many files on each request as the disk I/O can cause your application not to scale well. A few dozen includes should be fine, but it's generally a good idea to package your most commonly included files into a single script so you only have one include. The cost in memory of having a few classes here and there you don't need loaded will be better than the cost of disk I/O for including hundreds of smaller files.