[phpa] Cached "static" PHP vs HTML

Quick question:

Suppose I have a PHP script which is guaranteed to always generate the same
output. That is, it contains no dynamic data, doesn't use sessions, no DB
access or anything.

What sort of performance should I expect from PHPA compared with the two
alternative extremes of PHP without a cache (the slowest) and the equivalent
page as HTML served by Apache with no use of PHP?

I'm assuming that it's somewhere between the two, hopefully pretty close to
the raw HTML end of trhe scale rather than the other end. Is that fair?

(This is more a curiousity than anything else. The actual page is at
www.stamfordtradefair.co.uk/exhibitors.php (it'll open frames around itself
if you look at it). I'm using PHP because I have a bit of HTML which needs
to be repeated for a whole load of companies which  are hard coded as an
array into the PHP code. I could save the results as HTML and use that
instead, but this is a freebie site for someone we're doing some other work
for and I doubt it'll get the traffic to warrant it. It's just made me think
about where the bottlenecks are and which ones phpa has removed. I'm
guessing it's all outweighed by the size of the page at the end of the day
anyway.)

Mark Rogers, Quarella Ltd

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  www.php-accelerator.co.uk           Home of the free PHP Accelerator

To post, send email to phpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, email phpa-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with subject unsubscribe

Other related posts: