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

RE: Data streams

• To: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Subject: RE: Data streams
• From: david.lyon@c...
• Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:55:00 +1100
• Cc: "Stephen E. Beller" <sbeller@n...>, Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <74B14CBC0FEB9D4EB16969F09FA51F4507CD6E@M...>
• References: <74B14CBC0FEB9D4EB16969F09FA51F4507CD6E@M...>
• User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.6

Yes, soap is quite inneffecient and that's why
one reason why it is not widely used.

Quoting Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@b...>:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen E. Beller [mailto:sbeller@n...]
> > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:17 PM
> > To: 'Peter Hunsberger'
> > Cc: xml-dev@l...
> > Subject: RE:  Data streams
> >
> > As I said initially, larger data elements do change the
> > ratios. To go to the opposite extreme, large blocks of text
> > can actually be handled MORE efficiently with XML than CSV.
> >
> > On the other hand, the larger the attributes and other tag
> > "labels," the greater the ratio, and visa versa.
> >
> > So, all I'm saying is that there are times when XML make more
> > sense than CSV, and certain situations make CSV superior. No
> > one solution is right for all circumstances.
> >
> > By choosing the method that fits most sensibly with the data
> > will help alleviate some of the XML backlash. A good seems to
> > be that, everything else being equal, (a) the longer the tags
> > or the shorter the data elements, the less sense it makes to
> > transport the data via XML and (b) the shorter the tags or
> > the longer the data elements, the more sense it makes to
> > transport the data via XML. Anyone disagree?
>
> On the notion of transporting data via XML: I know that SOAP has not yet
> been mentioned in this thread, and the point I am about to make is
> somewhat tangential, but I thought some might be interested to see the
> results of a study[1] done by some folks in Australia (one at U of Tech,
> Sydney) that compared performance of real-time trading systems using a
> text-based wire representation (FIX) and SOAP. From the intro:
>
> "in realistic business application scenarios, SOAP's poor performance
> cannot be adequately explained simply by the disadvantages of text-based
> over binary wire formats. This also suggests that improvements in the
> efficiency of SOAP encoders and decoders may enable its use in high
> performance business applications."
>
> Interesting conclusion...
>
> [1] http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/alternate/P872/p872-kohlhoff.html
>
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Booz Allen Hamilton
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@g...]
> > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:24 PM
> > To: Stephen E. Beller
> > Cc: xml-dev@l...
> > Subject: Re:  Data streams
> >
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:35:48 -0500, Stephen E. Beller
> > <sbeller@n...>
> > wrote:
> > > In consideration of Elliotte's reply, I went back and looked at the
> > > XML
> > file
> > > Excel generated. Here's what I found ...
> > >
> > > Every one of the XML data elements had this tagging structure:
> > > <Row>
> > >    <Cell><Data ss:Type="Number">1</Data></Cell> </Row>
> > >
> > > In contrast, the CSV had this structure: 1,
> > >
> > > That's a 50 characters to 1 difference for each data element.
> > >
> > > I doubt that all those XML tags are necessary if you're
> > rendering the
> > > data in something other than a spreadsheet. But if you are
> > planning to
> > > use a spreadsheet, then the 50 to 1 ratio is valid, it seems to me.
> >
> > Use the number 10, now the difference is 51 to 2 or a ratio
> > of ~26 to 1.  Use the number 100 and the ratio is 52 to 3 or
> > ~17 to 1.  Six digits? 56 to 6 or ~10 to 1. Now add multiple
> > columns of data (as any realistic example would do) and the
> > ratio falls even farther.
> >
> > <snip/>
> > >
> > > So, this benchmark test still points to a huge difference
> > in file size
> > > and in unzipping and parsing time when you compare a large
> > data array
> > > in CSV compared to XML.
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not, the bench mark needs to be more realistic
> > before you draw any conclusions about "huge".
> >
> > --
> > Peter Hunsberger
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

• References:
  • RE: Data streams
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Data streams
• Next by Date: RE: Data streams
• Previous by thread: RE: Data streams
• Next by thread: RE: Data streams
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread