Hacker News Reader

Comment by skore | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, judging from my own (very limited) speed tests, that result simply means that it is en par with PHP 5.5.

PHP 5.6 is not only not finished yet - it is, in my experience, also the worst performing version you could choose. Not sure that's a good idea.

View on HN

Perhaps you are configuring them differently.

I have a test box with all recent 5.x versions installed.

1000 WP front pages, identical php build configuration:

     5.4    28.081s, 28.673s, 29.458s, 28.017s

     5.5    26.402s, 26.448s, 26.522s, 26.523s

     5.6    25.774s, 25.643s, 25.752s, 25.670s

      NG    15.083s, 15.100s, 15.052s, 15.066s

Common mistakes: Testing with xdebug enabled in one version or testing with opcache enabled in only one version.

I was testing with:

PHP 5.6.0beta4 (cli) (built: Jun 12 2014 14:13:53)

vs.

PHP 5.5.13 (cli) (built: Jun 12 2014 13:54:54)

...but, as I said - this is with very limited testing, basically just on Travis (which goes up and down in speed all day, but the difference between versions is pretty steady).

Note RC3 is about to ship so maybe try that.

Is xdebug load neutral? Maybe you need to skip loading that during testing, you wouldn't use it during production?

The "limit" of my test is that it's sort of a worst-case scenario - Travis does have a couple of things set up that you may not find in the wild, but the entire purpose is to get speed ratings on a purposefully crappy system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com