Subject: ?Could sort+ be quicker than for-each not preceding From: "davidpbrown" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:36:39 +0100 |
I'm expecting this has been thought of but then couldn't find mention of it.. For large <for-each not preceding> would it be quicker to do sort list when current-node not equal to immediately-preceding-sibling then DO otherwise look for the next following-sibling not equal to current-node ? I don't know if internally Saxon already does something similar to this. Or is finding immediate siblings costly? If this works, I'm wondering when it becomes worthwhile? Regards davidpbrown
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Grouping & summing, cknell | Thread | RE: [xsl] ?Could sort+ be quicker t, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] format number with change, James Steven | Date | RE: [xsl] adding a duration to a da, Belkin, Alla |
Month |