Subject: [xsl] Antwort: Re: [xsl] bad programming for speedup? From: christoph.naber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:46:24 +0200 |
Hello Justin, > 1) Your "bad" solution will be used very often in a performance- > challenged, or runtime-speed-is-critically-important, system. No, that won't be the case, the problem hasn't much relevance since I try to get a good solution just for interest. But when I wrote the stylesheets, I noticed a huge difference in runtime. Because of that I decided to ask some pro's. > 2) Your "bad" solution should exhibit an order of magnitude > better performance than the "good" XSL solution, and, that, > would be a surprise to me if that were to be the case. That was fact until Michael gave me the hint to do it in a recursive way. > <xsl:if test="not( preceding-sibling::*[1][self::row])"> Thank you! I searched the inet for some "best practice" patterns and how to write performant XSL, but I must admit that I did not spent too much time in that. Further I hope I'm learning to code better XSL by reading this XSL-List. Greetings from Germany Christoph Naber If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete it. We thank you for your support.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] bad programming for speed, James Fuller | Thread | RE: [xsl] Output to a file..., Naschke, Pete |
Re: [xsl] Antwort: RE: [xsl] bad pr, Abel Braaksma | Date | Re: [xsl] Antwort: RE: [xsl] bad pr, Robert Koberg |
Month |