Is it better to have one PHP file (index.php) that's some 800 lines long or is it better to have it broken down like

index.php

PHP Code:

<?php
include('a.php');
include('b.php');
include('c.php');
include('d.php');
include('e.php');
include('f.php');
include('g.php');
include('h.php');

Well what I'd really like to know is about speed... not about ease of editing later but loading speed and whatnot

Thanks

That will depend on what each script is doing.

ANSWER!!

It all depends on your needs and what kind of webpage you have, really.

- Steve

I'd say this is an interesting setup for a test.
It's probably really difficult to predict the result, if there is any difference at all.

I think a 800 line file would be quicker because of only one file being handled and the amount of executed and included code is still the same.

Breaking up your file into subparts is an organizational choice more than a performance one. I don't have any data to back this up but I'd say there is a slight performance advantage to having all of your code in one file. But I'd also say that that performance advantage is most likely negligable and is really a non-issue when it comes to organizing your code.

If you feel that the code is too cluttered you may want to break it up into logical chunks, each with its own file. You may want to put all of your function and class definitions in seperate files or put your header, footer, and body in seperate files.

Originally Posted by Insensus

I'd say this is an interesting setup for a test.
It's probably really difficult to predict the result, if there is any difference at all.

I think a 800 line file would be quicker because of only one file being handled and the amount of executed and included code is still the same.

Loading Times in PHP

If you need to include x.php in more than 1 page, then it's worth it. Because if you ever have to edit something in x.php, you edit 1 file instead of 10

I guess we'll have to test it out =P ... I thought there might've been a definite answer on this one

Originally Posted by effektz

If you need to include x.php in more than 1 page, then it's worth it. Because if you ever have to edit something in x.php, you edit 1 file instead of 10

Your correct, I'm trying to get my clients to do this process.

Originally Posted by MoForce

I guess we'll have to test it out =P ... I thought there might've been a definite answer on this one

I really think that loading one file will be faster then loading 10, but we will test.

Edit: Working on testing here.

RESULTS!

The exact source of the pages is seen here.

oneFile | manyFiles
0.0004479885 | 0.0008339882
0.0002670288 | 0.0005609989
0.0004720688 | 0.0005619526
0.0004420280 | 0.0005569458
0.0002529621 | 0.0005500317

0.0002479553 | 0.0005619526
0.0002419949 | 0.0007579327
0.0004351139 | 0.0006299019
0.0002350807 | 0.0005540848
0.0002350807 | 0.0005538464

Conclusion: Loading one file is faster but only by a couple 10,000ths of a second. If your loading files that are many kb's though, one file will speed things up.

Originally Posted by Decaf

Conclusion: Loading one file is faster but only by a couple 10,000ths of a second. If your loading files that are many kb's though, one file will speed things up.

Awesome! Thanks for testing! Well I definitely like the results. Even though the file sizes were that small it still had an impact even though it's small. I wonder how much of a difference large files can make. Another test could help in creating an equation for load time differences. hmmm

Originally Posted by MoForce

Awesome! Thanks for testing! Well I definitely like the results. Even though the file sizes were that small it still had an impact even though it's small. I wonder how much of a difference large files can make. Another test could help in creating an equation for load time differences. hmmm

Well, check out the board.php script.

Edit, check out the "big_files" folder.

Originally Posted by Decaf

Well, check out the board.php script.

Edit, check out the "big_files" folder.

wow

The difference definitely gets bigger

Page loading took:0.0415828228 seconds (many files)
Page loading took:0.0105719566 seconds (one file)

a difference of a few 100ths of a second now

I really can't imagine that saving milliseconds for each user is a great benefit when you then have to waste untold hours editing dozens or hundreds of files when you change the wording of a link.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

I really can't imagine that saving milliseconds for each user is a great benefit when you then have to waste untold hours editing dozens or hundreds of files when you change the wording of a link.

Can you give an example of having to edit so many links?

If all of the pages are monolithic HTML documents, there isn't much of a choice but to edit every single page for every minor change.

Even if your pages are constructed with Dreamweaver templates the site has to be rebuilt and every page reuploaded.

Using includes, there is only one edit and one upload required to change any common feature.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

If all of the pages are monolithic HTML documents, there isn't much of a choice but to edit every single page for every minor change.

Even if your pages are constructed with Dreamweaver templates the site has rebuilt and every page reuploaded.

Using includes, there is only one edit and one upload required to change any common feature.

Ya, i was thinking that you were saying something about having to change the include("page.php"); to include("page2.php");