RE: [xsl] 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: [xsl] 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