[FX.php List] The skinny on includes

[Steve Winter]

Hey Bob

See http://arin.me/blog/php-require-vs-include-vs-require_once-vs-include_once-performance-test in the end I think he concludes that x_once is much quicker than x, but that the functional difference between include_once and require_once is more important than the speed...

Ad always YMMV

Cheers
Steve

PS see you at devCon...?

Sent from the iPhone of Steve Winter
Matatiro Solutions
steve at matatirosolutions.co.uk
+44 777 852 4776

On 21 Jun 2011, at 20:41, Bob Patin <bob at patin.com> wrote:

> Here's my question:
> 
> At the top of my page, when I'm including the FX.php function page and my DB config page, which should I use:
> 
> include
> include_once
> require
> require_once
> 
> I saw a post the other day where someone said that include_once takes something like 10x longer to process; true?
> 
> All this time I've been using "include_once" and now I'm wondering if I've been needlessly slowing things down.
> 
> Bob Patin
> Longterm Solutions
> bob at longtermsolutions.com
> 615-333-6858
> http://www.longtermsolutions.com
> iChat: bobpatin
> FileMaker 9, 10 & 11 Certified Developer
> Member of FileMaker Business Alliance and FileMaker TechNet
> --
> Expert FileMaker Consulting 
> FileMaker Hosting for all versions of FileMaker
> PHP • Full email services • Free DNS hosting • Colocation • Consulting:
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FX.php_List mailing list
> FX.php_List at mail.iviking.org
> http://www.iviking.org/mailman/listinfo/fx.php_list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.iviking.org/pipermail/fx.php_list/attachments/20110622/42f5777b/attachment.html