Re: copy vs. copy-of performance in xsltproc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I did some profiling and could see no big difference between the two
approaches.

Sorry for bothering,
Wolfgang

| Intrinsically one would expect copy-of to be a bit faster than a recursive
| descent applying template rules to every node, but of course the actual
| answer for a particular product (and source document) can only be obtained
| by measurement. It may depend on how many other template rules there are.
|
| If you have a performance problem, I think that any difference here is
| unlikely to be the solution to it. (And if you don't, why trouble
yourself?)
|
| Michael Kay
| http://www.saxonica.com/
|
|
|
|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Werner, Wolfgang [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
|>Sent: 05 October 2004 09:45
|>To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|>Subject:  copy vs. copy-of performance in xsltproc
|>
| Hi,
|
| has any of you experience regarding the performance of copy
| compared to
| copy-of in xsltproc?
| Right now I'm copying some parts of the source tree completly while
| filtering some other parts.
| I use the following template:
|
| ~  <xsl:template match="/ | @* | node()">
| ~    <xsl:copy>
| ~      <xsl:apply-templates select="@* | node()"/>
| ~    </xsl:copy>
| ~  </xsl:template>
|
| My question is, if I want to copy a complete element, is it
| faster to use
|
| ~  <xsl:template match='dontfilterme'>
| ~    <xsl:copy-of select='.'/>
| ~  </xsl:template>
|
| or the default template above?
| How much does the complexity of the copied element influence
| the speed?
|
| Any pointers appreciated,
| Wolfgang

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBYrzHqjaicDyx8o8RAqAmAJ9k7ljvJErcvijtJP6yJiuobTe/NgCcCraB
7+jg1A7MYoLDgZsd7497PLU=
=/qtT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----