On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Eric Butera <eric.butera@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> on 12/30/2008 01:13 AM Sancar Saran said the following: >> >> > and please read this why >> >> > >> >> > http://talks.php.net/show/drupal08/0 >> > it also acts as a nice control mechanism to compare so many frameworks, >> > trivial php, and html. really nice to see the numbers like that; so >> > cake is >> > horrifically slow, solar & zend are pretty fast and code igniter is like >> > twice as fast as those. >> >> One thing I'd like to point out is that hello world might show the >> overhead of putting something to screen, it doesn't touch the database >> or any of the harder parts of a "real" app like sessions & acls. >> Things quickly go downhill from there. > > yeah, i dont think ive ever seen a real world app (more specifically an app > from one of the companies ive worked at) that didnt hit the database on even > the most simple of pages. > >> >> I saw these slides and started comparing my custom developed framework >> vs most of the standard picks out there. At first I was really >> disappointed with myself after seeing my apache bench numbers suck. >> Turns out when you actually start building an app mine wasn't nearly >> as slow as I thought. But on a simple hello world it fared pretty >> pathetically because it ran a lot of other routines that I always use >> in real apps, but not in hello world. > > clearly there are other facets to compare, like a database layer would be > nice to compare. ci uses what they call active record, which basically > means runtime introspection of the database. im not sure how it works in > cake or zend, but i know symphony has an abstraction layer which theyve > already mapped propel and doctrine to. lots of room for performance > differences there no doubt. > > what i tend to think about when i see these numbers tho, is that if i were > to ever build a company w/ a php app that was slated for growth, cake would > be probly the last option on the list. the differences arent so bad when > you have a tiny website, but we've got 2000 servers at photobucket for > example. imagine how many servers you can save at that scale w/ a php > framework that does its job and gets out of the way. > > i just happen to know another popular web company here in denver running on > some hacked version of cake, and honestly, i feel sorry for them :D > > -nathan > I was following the blog tutorial on cake and here's what I got from hitting the post/index page: 081230 12:51:55 316 Connect root@localhost on 316 Init DB cake 316 Query SHOW TABLES FROM `cake` 316 Query DESCRIBE `posts` 316 Query SELECT `Post`.`id`, `Post`.`title`, `Post`.`body`, `Post`.`created`, `Post`.`modified` FROM `posts` AS `Post` WHERE 1 = 1 316 Quit -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
