Greetings List!
This inquiry intrigued me. During the beta days of the The FileMaker
API for PHP (F.A.P.), FX.php seemed a bit faster; and since I have a
little test box in my basement with both FX.php and F.A.P. installed
on it, and F.A.P is no longer beta, I thought I'd throw equivalent
tests at it, and see what popped out. The results REALLY surprised me:
* F.A.P.: 14.6196269989
* FX.php: 1.72123408318
* F.A.P.: 14.7427921295
* FX.php: 1.68022203445
* F.A.P.: 15.8884699345
* FX.php: 2.96020698547
* F.A.P.: 14.6040740013
* FX.php: 1.64016890526
* F.A.P.: 15.450097084
* FX.php: 1.72534799576
Average F.A.P. Time: 15.0610120296
Average FX.php Time: 1.94543600082
In short, FX.php is almost 8x faster! I performed this test by
simulating load using repeated queries via each API repeatedly. Also,
although the server in question is running the latest version of
FileMaker Server Advanced 9, it only has a developer license
installed, so I had to keep repetitions very low, but I would expect
results to scale similarly as server load and available connections
were increased. Also, the test box is a Mac Mini, so you could handle
a lot more lot with faster hardware. I've attached my test code.
--Chris Hansen
FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
Creator of FX.php
"The best way from FileMaker to the Web."
www.iViking.org
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Leo R. Lundgren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I cannot shed very much light upon whether FM PHP API is more
> integrated to the server than FX.php, but I doubt it. AFAIK, both of
> them communicated with the server using XML and parses it on their
> side. The PHP stuff you see on the server and in its permissions are
> most likely just administrative stuff FM put in there to integrate
> the PHP part with the server as a whole a bit more.
>
> I decided to go with the FM API, mainly because it's object oriented
> whereas FX.php uses arrays. I just like to keep it clean and similar
> to the rest of my code. I have no doubt that FX.php works just as
> well though.
>
> BTW, it would be interesting to see some performance comparisons
> between the two? Nomatter which one you choose, having FM as a DB
> backend will never be fast, but perhaps there's some difference in
> speed between the two anyway? Perhaps they parse XML differently or
> something.
>
> // Leo
>
> 31 jan 2008 kl. 14.20 skrev Steve Winter:
>
>> Greetings all…
>>
>>
>>
>> In search of the holy grail, web app speed, I’m looking for;
>>
>> a. gut feelings
>>
>> b. opinions
>>
>> c. evidence
>>
>> and am interested in all three on which is faster, the native FMP
>> PHP interface or using FX.php…?
>>
>>
>>
>> I was under the impression that ‘native’ FMP PHP is simply an
>> alternative to FX.php in that it still uses the xml interface… that
>> said I’ve also noticed that in FMS 9 there is actually a PHP
>> interface listed, which makes me wonder if in fact it has hooks
>> directly into the server….??
>>
>>
>>
>> As I said, any information greatly received…
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Steve
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: speed_comparison.php
Type: text/php
Size: 2757 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20080131/99726c0e/speed_comparison.bin
-------------- next part --------------