Re: [xslt] is xsltproc really this fast?

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 06:13:38PM -0400, Paul Tremblay wrote:
> I hope this comment isn't too off topic, but is xsltproc really 25 times
> faster than xalan? 

  Honnestly I don't think so... Faster in average, yes but not by such
a margin. I don't try to do benchmark, but I try to keep libxml2/libxslt
relatively fast and lightweight.

> I have a small stylesheet, which I processed firts with xsltproc and
> then with xalan. xsltproc took .75 seconds to process. xalan took 26
> seconds! Other tests have yielded similar results. 
> 
> I should point out that I have a pentium one box, so maybe java just
> can't run efficiently on a machine this slow. 

Well running a single processing possibly small document really defavor a
Java based processor since it has to set-up the Java environment,
and a single execution doesn't allow to take the benefits of JIT
or HotSpot optimizations. That said, I think Java is a pig ressource
wise, and in cases like yours C - while being harder to program - really
really make a difference, and it shows.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/