[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????

• To: David Megginson <david@m...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:09:21 +0000
• In-reply-to: <15964.46767.897161.524921@m...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <3E5C9518.1050402@e...> <15964.46767.897161.524921@m...>

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:44, David Megginson wrote:

> In the past, I've observed that actual XML parsing generally accounts
> for under 1% of a batch application's running time (much less, if
> you're building a big object tree or doing any database access).  That
> means that if you speed up the XML parsing by 10%, you might have sped
> up your application by less than 0.1% (or realistically, not at all,
> if the parser was already idling waiting for data over the network).

Bottlenecks are shifty things. Just because the parser isn't taking up much 
CPU doesn't mean that a binary XML wouldn't make your system faster.

If your system is sitting idling waiting for data over the network, then a 
more compact representation would be a winner!

> David

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread