[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|