RE: Performance question
> A big thanks to James on determining the performance > bottleneck. Here is a recap and resolution. > SAXON will behave in much the same way: position() is far cheaper than xsl:number. The naive algorithm for numbering n successive nodes using xsl:number has performance proportional to n squared, and it's not at all easy to identify the cases that are suitable for optimising. My vote would be to throw out xsl:number and replace it with a function position-in() that returns the position of an arbitrary node in an arbitrary node-set. Not only would this be much easier to implement efficiently, it would also be more flexible and more consistent with the rest of XSL. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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