Uwe Schmidt wrote:
The hashtable approach would of course reduce memory usage,
Note that hashtables are evil :) I'm all for tries instead.
but this
would require a global change of the processing model: A document then
does not longer consist of a single tree, it alway consists of a pair of
apfelmus wrote:
Ah! I got struck by a trick: it's possible to store every tag name in
full only once but still present a simple tree with full tag names to
the user. You simply share all the tag names. For instance, in
let x = mytagname in Tree (Tag x) [Tree (Tag x) [Text foobar]]
the
Uwe Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it into HXT.
This still does not solve the processing of very very large
XML document. I doubt, whether we can do this with a DOM
like approach, as in HXT or HaXml. Lazy input does not solve all problems.
A SAX like
Rene de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I undertand the coding correctly every tag is stored as a seperate
Haskell string. As each byte of a string under GHC takes 12 bytes this alone
leads to high memory usage.
Not that it detracts from your point, but I guess that is 24 bytes per
Yitzchak Gale [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Thielemann wrote:
HXT uses Parsec, which is strict.
I had a look at using HXT awhile ago. Parsec is the least of the problems.
HXT stores the XML as an explicit tree in memory, where the head has explict
On 10/22/07, Rene de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had a look at using HXT awhile ago. Parsec is the least of the problems.
HXT stores the XML as an explicit tree in memory, where the head has
explict
references to the children.
What did you end up using? I've started building an app
