Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: exponential math functions in xslt From: Trevor Nash <tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:47:18 +0100 |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:03:08 -0700 (PDT), Dimitri wrote: > >--- Trevor Nash <tcn at melvaig dot co dot uk> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Dimitri wrote: >> >> >As for another myth -- that extension functions are significantly >> >faster, I recently performed detailed timing in an XSLT application, >> in >> >which ln() was computed approx. 5000 times. Substitution of the FXSL >> >"ln" template with calls to a Javascript extension function led to >> less >> >than 10% increase of the speed. >> >> Why did you pick Javascript? >> >> The numbers for a Java (not Javascript) extension called from a Java >> based XSLT processor are likely to be different. > >Allow me to disagree with this. The Javascript extension does nothing >else but call the standard math.log() > >And the math object itself will hardly be implemented in Javascript. >Therefore, there's no reason why Javascript's math.log() would perform >slower than its any other language counterpart. > True, except that you are invoking an interpreter in order to determine that it is math.log() that you need to call - I'm just guessing that the cost of doing that is significant (scanning, parsing, symbol lookup...). Are you saying the XSLT/Javascript combination contrives to do this work just once per run? Trevor -- Traditional training & distance learning, Consultancy by email Melvaig Software Engineering Limited voice: +44 (0) 1445 771 271 email: tcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: Re: exponential math func, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | [xsl] accessing attributes at diffe, Clifford, Karen |
RE: [xsl] filter based on parameter, Marrow | Date | [xsl] RE: [sly] Minimum value, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |