Subject: Re: Grouping in the FAQ (was Re: Conflicting Node Values) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:50:53 +0100 (BST) |
> Steve Muench writes: > > At least for the Oracle XSLT engine the: > > > > generate-id(.) = generate-id(key('tid',.)[1]) > > > > is slightly faster because it doesn't have to produce > > two nodesets to merge and count as does the: > > > > count(.|key('tid',.))=1 > > > > approach. The latter is definitely shorter and the > > Thats very interesting. Maybe I misinterpret Mike as saying it was > faster. I did say the "union" approach might be marginally faster on Saxon, on thinking about it again I'm not so sure. I didn't spot that the generate-id() approach would only look at the first node in the result of key() whereas the union approach looks at all of them. Would need to measure to be sure. If people are going to start using generate-id() like this, though, I ought to think about speeding it up (if possible, without bloating the tree!) I'm a bit confused as generate-id(.) = generate-id(key('tid',.)[1]) tests if the current node is the first node returned by the yey and generate-id(.) = generate-id(key('tid',.)) is the same due to `take first node in node set' semantics but count(.|key('tid',.))=1 tests that the key only returns one node, and that that is the current one. Don't you want count(.|key('tid',.)[1])=1 which is equivalent to the generate-id tests. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Grouping in the FAQ (was Re: Co, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: Grouping in the FAQ (was Re: Co, David Carlisle |
Re: human-talk for "::", Juergen Hermann | Date | RE: Scripting in an XSL Stylesheet., Paulo Gaspar |
Month |