have a file caching system for a php 5 library i use often. when the request is made i check for a cached file, if there is one i render it and exit.
$contents = file_get_contents( self::_cacheFile() );
echo $contents;
exit();
i have to do file_get_contents instead of just include because of cached xml files with the pesky
`<?xml version="1.0"?>`
is there a better way to pull in my cache files without shorttags firing?
Since include will evaluate the content of the files, e.g. run in through the PHP interpreter and also use the include_path to find files, I'd say include is slower. file_get_contents will just treat the contents of a file as string. Less overhead, more speed.
From the manual page:
file_get_contents() is the preferred way to read the contents of a file into a string. It will use memory mapping techniques if supported by your OS to enhance performance.
However, if you are after outputting the file, instead of getting it into a string, readfile() is even a tiny bit faster than file_get_contents. Given that include'ing will output any non PHP content as well, this likely more likely what you are after I guess.
Revised benchmark on my desktop machine:
$start1 = microtime(1);
for($i=0; $i<100000; $i++) {
include 'log.txt';
}
$end1 = microtime(1) - $start1;
and
$start2 = microtime(1);
for($i=0; $i<100000; $i++) {
echo file_get_contents('log.txt');
}
$end2 = microtime(1) - $start2;
and
$start3 = microtime(1);
for($i=0; $i<100000; $i++) {
readfile('log.txt');
}
$end3 = microtime(1) - $start3;
Result
echo PHP_EOL, $end1, // 137.577358961
PHP_EOL, $end2, // 136.229552984
PHP_EOL, $end3; // 136.849179029
file_get_contents and include don't do the same thing :
file_get_contents reads the content of a file, and returns it as a stringinclude will execute the content of the file.About the speed, without an opcode cache, I suppose file_get_contents should theorically be faster, as it does less calculation (no compilation/execution of the code).
Still, what matters the most is probably what you are trying to do : if you only want to read a file, you should use file_get_contents.
Nothing beats a (well made) benchmark (which is harder than it looks, I might be overlooking something). Still as both are made in the same conditions they should serve as a measuring stick.
test.txt is a 12kB, 876 lines text file:
vinko@parrot:~$ ls -la test.txt ; wc -l test.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 vinko vinko 12264 2010-02-24 19:08 test.txt
876 test.txt
file_get_contents.php:
vinko@parrot:~$ more file_get_contents.php
<?php
echo file_get_contents("test.txt");
?>
include.php
vinko@parrot:~$ more include.php
<?php
include("test.txt");
?>
readfile.php
vinko@parrot:~$ more readfile.php
<?php
readfile("test.txt");
?>
So, we time the execution of 10 thousand iterations of each:
vinko@parrot:~$ time for i in `seq 10000`; do php file_get_contents.php >/dev/null; done
real 3m57.895s
user 2m35.380s
sys 1m15.080s
vinko@parrot:~$ time for i in `seq 10000`; do php include.php >/dev/null; done
real 3m57.919s
user 2m37.040s
sys 1m16.780s
vinko@parrot:~$ time for i in `seq 10000`; do php readfile.php >/dev/null; done
real 3m57.620s
user 2m38.400s
sys 1m14.100s
Conclusion: All three are practically equivalent for 12 kB text files on PHP 5.2.4 with Suhosin Patch.
file_get_contents will be the fastest way to retrieve the cached file for a couple reasons:
If all you want to do is output the file contents, you should be using readfile(). This is faster and less memory intensive than file_get_contents()
thanks for the tip, for those who are curious
readfile();
<!-- dynamic page rendered in 0.133193016052 seconds.-->
<!-- static page rendered in 0.00292587280273 seconds.-->
vs.
file_get_contents();
<!-- dynamic page rendered in 0.133193016052 seconds.-->
<!-- static page rendered in 0.00303602218628 seconds.-->
vs.
include();
<!-- dynamic page rendered in 0.133193016052 seconds.-->
<!-- static page rendered in 0.00348496437073 seconds.-->