Subject: Re: [xsl] Performance improvement for a recursive function? From: Manfred Staudinger <manfred.staudinger@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:47:32 +0100 |
On 13/12/2011, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry, haven't studied the problem in enough detail to answer this. The > 9.3 code is clearly suboptimal, and is fixed in 9.4, which is all I > really needed to establish. No problem, will try it with 9.4 and report. Regards, Manfred On 13/12/2011, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 13/12/2011, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> to process 41337 path commands it takes 861 sec! The first 5000 path >>>> commands are processed in 14 sec (at 355.87 per sec) the last 5000 >>>> take 671 sec (only at 7.5 per sec). >>> I'm seeing an execution time of about 90 seconds under Saxon-EE >>> 9.3.0.11, down to 23 seconds under Saxon-EE 9.4.0.1 >> What baffles me is that with each tail-recursion it takes longer to >> execute the function! Do you see this also with 9.4? Any idea about >> the possible reason? > > Garbage collection, disk thrashing ? > > 1gb isn't much... > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Performance improvement f, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] Performance improvement f, Manfred Staudinger |
Re: [xsl] What problem are you tryi, Wendell Piez | Date | [xsl] RE: Count previous-siblings w, Lou Argyres |
Month |