|
Subject: Re: Merging XML From: Tom Mullen <Tom.Mullen@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:09:59 +0000 (GMT) |
Oliver,
>I'm not sure if the approach using key() is promising.
I had half suspected that key() would be more problematic for a generic
solution.
However, I'm currently using your updated stylesheet on a 800 node test
file. At the moment it's performed about 10% in 12 mins.
Am I right in thinking that key() is more efficient than searching through
nodes using a <xslt:for-each>. If so, then for large problems, key() may
be the only reasonable solution.
> However - it's an interesting idea. Nobody will stop you finding an
> alternative approach! :-)
I'd like to claim credit for the idea, but it was Jeni Tennison's (another
one for her FAQ?).
Although I'm not looking for something super-fast, 2+ hours is a bit too
long. I'm resigned to thinking that a solution that uses a priori knowledge
about the format of the XML is my only way forward.
Thanks
Tom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: Merging XML, Oliver Becker | Thread | Re: Merging XML, Oliver Becker |
| Re: Ultimate arbitrary sort algorit, Jeni Tennison | Date | formatting first item differently t, Eric Taylor |
| Month |