Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:14:33 +0000 |
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Andrew> On 21/12/2007, Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The cost of the JVM start-up cannot be eliminated, but it can >> be amortised. For a fair comparison, you need to know what this >> overhead is, so you can make sensible judgements. Andrew> I don't think it needs to be amortised... If you start the Andrew> timing at the correct point and ignore the first few runs Andrew> then I'd say you can safely forget about JVM startup and Andrew> warm-up for the remaining runs. Then you've ignored it completely, so you don't get a fair comparison. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Abel Braaksma |
Re: [xsl] XSLTPROC performance, Andrew Welch | Date | Re: [xsl] Santa has come early, Abel Braaksma |
Month |