Subject: Re[6]: Aggregate From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:46:16 +0000 |
Mike wrote: > Yes, Saxon would stop after it found the first one, which on average > would halve the execution time. But it would still be O(n-squared). OK. I think my problem lies in the fact that I have never understood what 0(n-squared) and so on actually means. Presumably this is something that is taught in beginners' computer-science classes, but never having attended one I'm still in the dark. My questions are: 1. how can you assess an algorithm to determine its 0(n*)-ness? 2. what implications does that have for methods to use in XSLT/XPath? > Generally, I would assume that XPath expressions aren't optimised > unless you have evidence to the contrary. It's earlier days for > optimizers yet. Mike, is it possible for you to sketch out the optimisations in Saxon - for example it's really helpful to know that I should use .. rather than parent::foo for reasons other than brevity (I tend towards the latter because it makes explicit where each step is going). Thanks, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Re[4]: Aggregate, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: Aggregate, David Carlisle |
Re: Transforming XML to XML, Zeljko Rajic | Date | Re: Transforming XML to XML, David Carlisle |
Month |