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

Re: Rick Jelliffe's article on XSLT 1.0 performance

• From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:20:37 +0100

On Sun, 2017-02-12 at 14:16 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> Thanks Michael. And congrats on Saxon doing so well: Saxon HE being
> just as
> fast or faster than libxslt (ignoring JVM startup time) was one of
> the
> surprise results to me.

On my own Web site (www.fromoldbooks.org) in the few places where I use
a standalone Java query engine, I run it using "nailgun", which keeps a
pool of JVMs started and ready, runs the task on one of them and then
after sending back the result starts another JVM ready for next time.

I often do find Saxon faster than libxslt these days, even including
JVM startup time, and using some XSLT 2 techniques such as "as"
attributes on variables can help widen that gap.

Liam


-- 
Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Rick Jelliffe's article on XSLT 1.0 performance
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: Rick Jelliffe's article on XSLT 1.0 performance
    • From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Rick Jelliffe's article on XSLT 1.0 performance
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: Rick Jelliffe's article on XSLT 1.0 performance
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>