Efficiency comparison between the two include file loading methods in php

Efficiency comparison between the two include file loading methods in php

To continue to improve the core part of the "X Plan", we need to load necessary files and try two methods to find that the efficiency is different ~
Let's talk about two methods:

1) define a string variable to save the list of files to be loaded. Then foreach loads.
$ A = '/a. class. php;/Util/B. class. php;/Util/c. class. php ';
$ B = '/d. php;/e. class. php;/f. class. php;/g. class. php ';

// Load basic system files
$ Kernel_require_files = explode (';', $ a); // SYS_REQUIRE_LIB_FILE_LIST );
Foreach ($ kernel_require_files as $ f ){
Require_once (SYS_LIB_PATH. '/System'. $ f );
}

// Load basic system files
$ Kernel_require_files = explode (';', $ B); // SYS_BASE_FILE_LIST );
Foreach ($ kernel_require_files as $ f ){
Require_once (KERNEL_PATH. $ f );
}

2) load all the files to be loaded in an include file, and include the include file directly on the current page.
Include. php file content
Require_once ('func. php ');
Require_once ('langmanager. class. php ');
Require_once ('_ KernelAutoLoader. class. php ');
Require_once ('applicationsettingmanager. class. php ');

Require_once ('Lib/System/Activator. class. php ');
Require_once ('Lib/System/Util/CXML. class. php ');
Require_once ('Lib/System/Util/CWeb. class. php ');

I personally think the second method is more efficient, because there are no redundant foreach operations ~ Everything needs to be demonstrated, so I have verified it. The following two methods are used to randomly load the time consumed for 10 times:
Foreach
0.017754077911377
0.017686128616333
0.017347097396851
0.018272161483765
0.018272161483765
0.018401145935059
0.018187046051025
0.020787000656128
0.018001079559326
0.017963171005249

Include_once ('include. php ');
0.025792121887207
0.024733066558838
0.025041103363037
0.024915933609009
0.024657011032104
0.024134159088135
0.025845050811768
0.024954080581665
0.024757146835327
0.02684497833252

In addition, I tried to load all the files on the current page.
0.022285938262939
0.024394035339355
0.023194074630737
0.023229122161865
0.024644136428833
0.023538112640381
0.024240016937256
0.025094032287598
0.023231029510498
0.02339506149292

The results surprised me! The first method seems to be the slowest, with the least time consumed. loading multiple files on the current page takes a lot of time ~