Subject: RE: [xsl] [XSL] Accessing part of the result tree illustrated with "The Sudoku solver" example. From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:00:41 +0100 |
> > Such a construct would only really be useful if you could > rely on the > > processor evaluating all the items in a for-each in order, > but that > > is explictly not the case. One of the benefits of a side > effect free > > language is that it is naturally parallelisable. .... > > I'm just wondering now why this explanation is not given with > the W3C norm. It's not the job of a standard or specification to educate its readers or justify its approach. That needs to be done, but doesn't belong in the specification. > > I have another limitation: on my laptop with Pentium M 2GHz, > Saxon (Java) takes 100% CPU when calculating things like > Sudoku, and you would expect that ! > But on my Core 2 Duo desktop, it does not go above 50%, > although it takes CPU on both sides of the processor > (according to the Microsoft standard CPU-meter). That's an interesting observation: I'm not surprised by it, but it's nice to have confirmation of what I suspected would be the case. There are currently very few cases where Saxon uses more than one thread. One the whole, the benefits don't justify the overhead, especially as I think the most performance-critical workloads are on a server that is generally doing many transformations at the same time and therefore has plenty of opportunities to use multiple processors. But there are cases where using a dual processor more effectively to improve the latency of a single batch job would be useful, and it's one of those things I will do when I get a round tuit. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] NEED XSLT HELP, Wendell Piez | Thread | RE: [xsl] [XSL] Accessing part of t, Wendell Piez |
Re: [xsl] In Search of People Who K, Steve | Date | Re: [xsl] In Search of People Who K, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |