Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.2
    • Fix Version/s: 2.3
    • Component/s: General
    • Rank:
      38818

      Description

      internally clean_text() uses HTMLPurifier for all html texts, we could probably skip this expensive cleaning in case of simple well formed strings...

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Petr Škoda added a comment - - edited

          Used memory on forum discussion page (macports 64 bit PHP 5.3.10):

          • before - 67MB
          • after (simple texts in forum posts, HTMLPurifier not used on page) - 60MB
          Show
          Petr Škoda added a comment - - edited Used memory on forum discussion page (macports 64 bit PHP 5.3.10): before - 67MB after (simple texts in forum posts, HTMLPurifier not used on page) - 60MB
          Hide
          Petr Škoda added a comment -

          Loop test:

          
          $text = "<br />abc\n<p>def<em>efg</em><strong>hi<br />j</strong></p>";
          
          $start = time();
          for ($i=0;$i<10000;$i++) {
              purify_html($text);
          }
          echo "purifier: ".(time()-$start)." s<br />";
          
          $start = time();
          for ($i=0;$i<10000;$i++) {
              is_purify_html_necessary($text);
          }
          echo "detection only: ".(time()-$start)." s<br />";
          

          Result:

          purifier: 29 s
          detection only: 0 s
          
          Show
          Petr Škoda added a comment - Loop test: $text = "<br />abc\n<p>def<em>efg</em><strong>hi<br />j</strong></p>" ; $start = time(); for ($i=0;$i<10000;$i++) { purify_html($text); } echo "purifier: " .(time()-$start). " s<br />" ; $start = time(); for ($i=0;$i<10000;$i++) { is_purify_html_necessary($text); } echo "detection only: " .(time()-$start). " s<br />" ; Result: purifier: 29 s detection only: 0 s
          Hide
          Sam Hemelryk added a comment -

          The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week.

          TIA and ciao

          Show
          Sam Hemelryk added a comment - The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week. TIA and ciao
          Hide
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment -

          Hi Petr,
          this looks really cool. We should have more of these simple/quick checks for overall performance improvements i think.

          I did wonder how much does the checking add to load/time in complex/large pages with large strings ?

          I would just suggest renaming is_purify_html_necessary() to something like is_purify_html_required() or is_html_complex(since thats what the function is really checking)

          Show
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment - Hi Petr, this looks really cool. We should have more of these simple/quick checks for overall performance improvements i think. I did wonder how much does the checking add to load/time in complex/large pages with large strings ? I would just suggest renaming is_purify_html_necessary() to something like is_purify_html_required() or is_html_complex(since thats what the function is really checking)
          Hide
          Petr Škoda added a comment -

          Hi,

          1/ did you see:

          if (strpos($text, '&') !== false or preg_match('|<[^pesb/]|', $text)) 

          It should kick in an vast majority of complex texts. The cost should be very tiny compared to the following htmlpurifier processing.

          2/ I guess the name is not important as long as it is grammatically correct because it is used form a single place only and is marked as @private which should exclude it from docs.

          Show
          Petr Škoda added a comment - Hi, 1/ did you see: if (strpos($text, '&') !== false or preg_match('|<[^pesb/]|', $text)) It should kick in an vast majority of complex texts. The cost should be very tiny compared to the following htmlpurifier processing. 2/ I guess the name is not important as long as it is grammatically correct because it is used form a single place only and is marked as @private which should exclude it from docs.
          Hide
          Petr Škoda added a comment -

          rebased + migrated tests to phpunit

          Show
          Petr Škoda added a comment - rebased + migrated tests to phpunit
          Hide
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment -

          Thanks for this, its been integrated into master.

          Show
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment - Thanks for this, its been integrated into master.
          Hide
          Adrian Greeve added a comment -

          I got no errors in the unit tests. I didn't notice any difference in speed.
          I tested this patch with a discussion that had 100 posts in it to see what the statistics were like they are as follows:

          pre-patch
          5.086309 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB
          5.719542 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB
          5.465588 secs RAM: 68.9MB RAM peak: 69.9MB
          5.34252 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB

          post-patch
          5.388531 secs RAM: 61.9MB RAM peak: 62.8MB
          4.854898 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB
          5.165334 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB
          5.124471 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB

          So there is a bit of improvement with the RAM.

          Show
          Adrian Greeve added a comment - I got no errors in the unit tests. I didn't notice any difference in speed. I tested this patch with a discussion that had 100 posts in it to see what the statistics were like they are as follows: pre-patch 5.086309 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB 5.719542 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB 5.465588 secs RAM: 68.9MB RAM peak: 69.9MB 5.34252 secs RAM: 69MB RAM peak: 69.9MB post-patch 5.388531 secs RAM: 61.9MB RAM peak: 62.8MB 4.854898 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB 5.165334 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB 5.124471 secs RAM: 61.8MB RAM peak: 62.7MB So there is a bit of improvement with the RAM.
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          And this has landed upstream, finally! Yay!

          תודה רבה && شكرا جزيلا



          Closing, ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - And this has landed upstream, finally! Yay! תודה רבה && شكرا جزيلا Closing, ciao

            People

            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: