Subject: RE: [xsl] Omnimark vs. XSL (Saxon) Challenge From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:45:30 -0000 |
# It's a big program and I have a tendancy to think it's going # in an innefficient direction mainly by having all templates # except root be named and called explicitly with a whole lot # of variables being passed from template to template. In my # limited experience, these slow down processing significantly. I don't think there's any reason why calling named templates should be inefficient. The thing to look at is the algorithmic complexity. # Someday I'll look into engine source and find out more specifically. # Another suspicious piece that I've noticed is the calls like: # # <xsl:variable name="random-nodes-r" select="document('')//*" # /> <xsl:variable name="random-nodes-c" select="document('')//*" /> # # Which, (correct me if I'm wrong here), are making two extra # copies of the entire document in a variable? No, only one extra copy. Calling document() multiple times with the same URI will return the document from a local cache. Michael Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Omnimark vs. XSL (Saxon) , Brian Chrisman | Thread | Re: [xsl] Omnimark vs. XSL (Saxon) , Mike Ferrando |
RE: [xsl] Omnimark vs. XSL (Saxon) , Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] Using key to group large docu, Heinz Seldte |
Month |