Subject: Re: [xsl] Streaming with XSLT version 3.0|
From: David Rudel <fwqhgads@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:21:27 +0100
It is probably worth noting that I use XSLT for unconventional purposes. I'm a data analyst who would rather use XSL rather than, say, Python or R, for a variety of reasons. I hate the limited data structures of R, my data is structured enough that I prefer to keep things in XML, I like having the full strength of XPath3 (rather than use PyTables or some xpath1 library in a more typical rapid-prototyping language ), but my work tends to be too complex to be handled by XQuery. The byte-code generation time is negligible compared to the runtime of most of my analysis scripts. -David On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11 Mar 2014, at 15:12, David Rudel <fwqhgads@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Radu, >> Regarding your "In conclusion" paragraph, is this for the >> transformation under discussion, or are you speaking more generally? >> The reason I ask is that at one time oXygen's default behavior was to >> disable byte-code generation. If that is still the case, wouldn't a >> use also need to enable byte-code generation in order to get similar >> performance? >> >> I use oXygen and typically load a completely empty configuration file >> as a "custom" config. This typically makes my scripts run about twice >> as quickly compared to default oXygen behavior owing to the generation >> of byte-code. >> -David > > Interesting. I would have assumed that for many oXygen scenarios, the extra compile-time cost of generating bytecode didn't justify the run-time benefits; but that's in the absence of any measurements. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > -- "A false conclusion, once arrived at and widely accepted is not dislodged easily, and the less it is understood, the more tenaciously it is held." - Cantor's Law of Preservation of Ignorance.