<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PHP Count Performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:47:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1-alpha</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Scott</title>
		<link>http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/#comment-19324</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:27:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josephscott.org/?p=1674#comment-19324</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s quite possible that PHP4 would have shown an even bigger difference.  Hopefully there aren&#039;t too many cases of PHP4 being used for production sites any more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s quite possible that PHP4 would have shown an even bigger difference.  Hopefully there aren&#8217;t too many cases of PHP4 being used for production sites any more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angelo Mandato</title>
		<link>http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/#comment-19322</link>
		<dc:creator>Angelo Mandato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josephscott.org/?p=1674#comment-19322</guid>
		<description>Good to know. I bet if you ran this test on PHP 4 you see an even bigger difference in execution time.

I should have noticed the use of memory_get_peak_usage(), that&#039;s a PHP 5.2+ function.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to know. I bet if you ran this test on PHP 4 you see an even bigger difference in execution time.</p>
<p>I should have noticed the use of memory_get_peak_usage(), that&#8217;s a PHP 5.2+ function.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Scott</title>
		<link>http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/#comment-19321</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josephscott.org/?p=1674#comment-19321</guid>
		<description>I used PHP 5.2.9 to run those.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used PHP 5.2.9 to run those.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angelo Mandato</title>
		<link>http://josephscott.org/archives/2010/01/php-count-performance/#comment-19320</link>
		<dc:creator>Angelo Mandato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josephscott.org/?p=1674#comment-19320</guid>
		<description>Which version of PHP are you using for this test? The performance of count()/sizeof() is supposed to be linear in PHP 5+ since the length of the array is maintained with the array rather than calculated by the function call. I wouldn&#039;t be surprised though if calling count() once still makes a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which version of PHP are you using for this test? The performance of count()/sizeof() is supposed to be linear in PHP 5+ since the length of the array is maintained with the array rather than calculated by the function call. I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised though if calling count() once still makes a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>