php 什么更快？file_put_contents(); fopen(); fwrite(); fclose();?
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6415958/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
What's faster? file_put_contents(); fopen(); fwrite(); fclose();?
提问by genesis
What is better? I have my own MySQL log so it has about 90MB, but I'm not sure which one should I use. It opens file EVERYTIME there is query to execute.
什么是更好的？我有自己的 MySQL 日志，所以它有大约 90MB，但我不确定应该使用哪一个。它每次有要执行的查询时都会打开文件。
What's faster?
什么更快？
回答by hwrdprkns
According to this article, the fwrite()is a smidgen faster. (Link to Wayback Machine, because site no longer exists.)
根据这篇文章，这fwrite()是一个更快的速度。（链接到 Wayback Machine，因为站点不再存在。）
My guess is that file_put_contents()is just a wrapper around those three methods anyways, so you would lose the overhead.
我的猜测是file_put_contents()无论如何这只是这三种方法的包装器，所以你会失去开销。
EDIT: This sitehas the same information.
编辑：该站点具有相同的信息。
回答by shaunhusain
This function is identical to calling fopen(), fwrite() and fclose() successively to write data to a file.
该函数等同于依次调用 fopen()、fwrite() 和 fclose() 将数据写入文件。
Check the docs: http://php.net/manual/en/function.file-put-contents.php
检查文档：http: //php.net/manual/en/function.file-put-contents.php
Shaun
肖恩
回答by cwallenpoole
Depends on your use-case. I've opened files which were over .5 GB, and I certainly didn't want to use file() or file_get_contents(); And file_put_contents couldn't work because I needed to read the file too.
取决于您的用例。我打开了超过 0.5 GB 的文件，我当然不想使用 file() 或 file_get_contents(); 而且 file_put_contents 无法工作，因为我也需要读取文件。
If you're really just interested in appending a file without reading, it doesn't terribly matter; if you're trying to read a whole file into memory (or write a whole file from memory), it similarly does not really matter -- the speed gain, as near as I've seen, is round-off error.
如果您真的只是对附加文件而不阅读感兴趣，那也没什么关系；如果您试图将整个文件读入内存（或从内存中写入整个文件），同样也无关紧要——我所看到的速度增益是舍入误差。
BUT, if you're expecting that these files will ever grow to gargantuan beasts, or if you only need a small subset of the number of lines of a given file, I cannot suggest use of fopen (or the SplFileObject, which is AWESOME) strongly enough -- it is really easy to read from the middle of a file with these.
但是，如果您期望这些文件会变成巨大的野兽，或者如果您只需要给定文件行数的一小部分，我不能SplFileObject强烈建议使用 fopen（或 .足够了——用这些从文件的中间读取真的很容易。
Since you're just logging, on the other hand, I, personally, find it clearer and more concise to simply use file_put_contents with the append flag. It lets everyone know what's going on without having to look twice.
另一方面，由于您只是在进行日志记录，因此我个人认为将 file_put_contents 与 append 标志一起使用更清晰、更简洁。它让每个人都知道发生了什么，而不必看两次。
回答by flykobe
- If there is only one write-operation for one file in a request, file_put_contents is better than fwrite, because it has wrappered open, write and close functions, and as fast as fwrite.
- If there are multi-write for one file in a request, we need open file first, then write multi-times, so fwrite is faster. But, if it is a very busy system, which has a lot of "open files"(ulimit -a | grep "open files"), file_put_contents will be a more reasonable choose, because it keep the file handler shorter than fwrite.
- 如果一个请求中只有一个文件的写操作，file_put_contents 比 fwrite 好，因为它封装了 open、write 和 close 函数，和 fwrite 一样快。
- 如果一个请求中一个文件有多次写入，我们需要先打开文件，然后再写入多次，所以fwrite更快。但是，如果它是一个非常繁忙的系统，它有很多“打开文件”（ulimit -a | grep “打开文件”），file_put_contents 将是一个更合理的选择，因为它使文件处理程序比 fwrite 更短。
回答by Marc B
As per usual, have you benchmarked it? file_put_contents is essentially just a wrapper around the 3 f*()calls anyways, so at most you're losing out by doing one extra function call, but gaining somewhat by having less front-end code to parse.
按照惯例，您是否对其进行了基准测试？f*()无论如何，file_put_contents 本质上只是 3 个调用的包装器，所以最多你会因为执行一个额外的函数调用而失败，但是通过减少前端代码来解析而有所收获。
