Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Data streams
 Thank you all for this stimulating dialogue! David lyon wrote: << Put another way, the compressed xml file was 2.5MB and the CSV file was 34MB. >> This is incorrect. The compressed CSV was 150 KB. And XML took 5 minutes simply to uncompress (unzip) and another 10 minutes to parse. The CSV did both in about 1 minute. <<Most business apps need to hold multiple sets of arrays and thus the need for something like xml.>> A CSV can hold many different arrays in a single file. Steve -----Original Message----- From: david.lyon@c... [mailto:david.lyon@c...] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:19 PM To: Stephen E. Beller Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Data streams All, Mind if I pull apart this report for some further analysis? Quoting "Stephen E. Beller" <sbeller@n...>: > I tried Steven's experiment from a different angle. I filled an Excel XP > spreadsheet with a single-digit number, saved it in both XML and in a > comma-delimited text file (CSV). I then compressed both with WinZip and then > opened both with Excel. Here's what I found: > > The XML file was 840MB, the CSV 34MB -- a 2,500% difference > Compressed, the XML file was 2.5MB, the CSV 0.00015MB (150KB) -- a 1,670% > difference. True. XML files are usually bigger. > Equally dramatic is the time it took to uncompress and render the files as > an Excel spreadsheet: It took about 20 minutes with the XML file; the CSV > took 1 minute -- a 2,000% difference. True. The old parts of Excel are written in assembly language by true masters. They are efficient. The CSV era was at the same time as the assembly language coding. The new XML parts are written by programmers of the bloatware era. They are not optimised to the same degree. They are probably written in high level languages and I would guess have never been "profiled". That's an old word... maybe it's something that is never done with xml... wouldn't be surprised. In perspective, Excel isn't a tool (imho) that a user would use to deal with xml data in a commercial environment. As rendering tags is absolutely no use to a business user. They want the product data printed like a pricelist,or a purchase order printed like a purchase order. xml tags are alienspeek or geekspeek at best. But some people do optimise and profile their XML. A "real" xml trading app I would bet would fare better than excel. > My conclusion is that delimited text files handle large > arrays of data more efficiently. Maybe, but providing only a single array is used. Most business apps need to hold multiple sets of arrays and thus the need for something like xml. Finally... > The XML file was 840MB, the CSV 34MB -- a 2,500% difference > Compressed, the XML file was 2.5MB, the CSV 0.00015MB (150KB) -- a 1,670% > difference. Put another way, the compressed xml file was 2.5MB and the CSV file was 34MB. Therefore, sending compressed XML data is more efficient than using CSV and requires less resources to transmit and send. David 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
