Re: PEAR performance/overhead

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"David Dickson" <davidd.lists@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:41B5F7CC.40306@xxxxxxxxxxx
>I was told that PEAR has too much overhead to be considered for a large 
>scale site. Does any one feel the same? Is this an outrageous comment? I 
>would like to hear comments from people who are using PEAR, or people who 
>have considered PEAR but decided not to use it and your reasons.

I wound up taking a hybrid approach, rolling my own DB abstraction layer 
that was more efficient than PEAR DB (and less full featured, as well), but 
suited our needs nicely.  By doing this I was able to reduce each page's 
memory footprint by about 50%, and execution time by about 40%.  I still use 
other components of PEAR, however, and I think it is a great resource.

Anyone who dismisses PEAR out of hand, without giving it a serious look, is 
insane.

> The packages I am particularly interested in are HTML_QuickForm and DB.

You'll have to write some tests and do some benchmarks to decide what the 
best answer is. 

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


[Index of Archives]     [PHP Home]     [Apache Users]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Install]     [PHP Classes]     [Pear]     [Postgresql]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP on Windows]     [PHP Database Programming]     [PHP SOAP]

  Powered by Linux