[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XALAN-C++ Performance...
As a second reference point I have some figures suggesting Saxon is currently on average about 1.6 times quicker than XalanC over a sample set of transforms when both use their default way of building an OM. Your result is a little more than this but within the variance seen on specific transforms. Libxslt is quicker than XalanC by about 15% on average. However, these figures have not been externally reviewed so treat with care. Kev. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of S. Asif Imam > Sent: 30 May 2002 13:53 > To: MullBerry (XSLT) > Subject: XALAN-C++ Performance... > > > Hi All, > > Just want a confirmation regarding XALANC++'s performance.. > > 1. I am making XERCES DOM Tree > 2. Using ParserLiasion > 3. Using XercesDOMWrapperParsedSource > 4. Using Compiled Stylesheet (Compiled only once... in a single run) > 5. Using Multithreading... Different threads trasnform ...and out put the > result > > Kind of same thing had been achieved using SAXON. in Java. > > Now transfomration time differs in Minutes.... > eg: > 10,000 nodes transformed using SAXON in almost 5 mins. > 10,000 nodes transformed using XALAN in almost 13 mins.. > ( > > Step by step execution revealed that XalanTransformer.transform > takes much time. > > Any one can suggest idea to optimize or confirm if XALANC++ > really is that much slow. > > Regards > Asif. > > > > > > > > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > > 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
|