Subject: Re: Merging XML From: Tom Mullen <Tom.Mullen@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:09:59 +0000 (GMT) |
Oliver, >I'm not sure if the approach using key() is promising. I had half suspected that key() would be more problematic for a generic solution. However, I'm currently using your updated stylesheet on a 800 node test file. At the moment it's performed about 10% in 12 mins. Am I right in thinking that key() is more efficient than searching through nodes using a <xslt:for-each>. If so, then for large problems, key() may be the only reasonable solution. > However - it's an interesting idea. Nobody will stop you finding an > alternative approach! :-) I'd like to claim credit for the idea, but it was Jeni Tennison's (another one for her FAQ?). Although I'm not looking for something super-fast, 2+ hours is a bit too long. I'm resigned to thinking that a solution that uses a priori knowledge about the format of the XML is my only way forward. Thanks Tom ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Merging XML, Oliver Becker | Thread | Re: Merging XML, Oliver Becker |
Re: Ultimate arbitrary sort algorit, Jeni Tennison | Date | formatting first item differently t, Eric Taylor |
Month |