Subject: RE: [xsl] Latest XSLTMark benchmark From: "Kevin Jones" <kjouk@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 15:52:52 +0100 |
> >These are persuasive points, especially when it comes to some of the >next-generation optimizations. Do any other XSLT implementors have an >opinion on "parse+transform" vs. "transform only"? > I do have a complication in this area. I normally use a demand loaded DOM so that the parse and transform stages are actually interwolven, this helps I/O. I can seperate the stages but the code is optimised for demand loading and has additional execution costs because of it. >Kevin also correctly points out the usefulness of measuring memory >consumption. This is even trickier to do right (although we have done some >internal tests), but would be a very useful metric. Presumably one would >express it as "kilobyte per kilobyte", where the first kilobyte is input >size and the second one is heap size delta -- measuring "memory efficiency" >of a processor. Perhaps an alternative is to measure performance on increasingly large input documents to show the memory scalability of a processor. I do have a personal interest here in that I also have a paged DOM almost ready to go on which you can control the memory usage. In this model a kb/kb figure wouldn't give a useful insight. Kev. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] How to mesure the performance, Sachidanandam E.K | Thread | RE: [xsl] Latest XSLTMark benchmark, Eugene Kuznetsov |
RE: [xsl] Latest XSLTMark benchmark, Kevin Jones | Date | RE: [xsl] position(), Richard Mitchell |
Month |