Ok, thanks for the info. I guess a Numeric Range Index https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/236is required to address this.
/Andy On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Christian Grün <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Andy, > > my assumption is that the doc() gives you better results because it > creates a main-memory representation of the document, which can > generally be processed faster than a persistent database > representation. > > If I remember right, the XMark queries 11 and 12 contain a > non-equi-join, which lead to frequent lookups of the same data, and > for which BaseX provides no optimization yet. All other XMark queries > are probably evaluated faster on the database, in particular when > larger XMark instances are used for testing. > > Hope this helps, feel free to ask for more, > Christian > ___________________________ > > 2013/7/2 Andy Bunce <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > Looking to compare the performance of BaseX on a number of machines I > have > > been running the Xmark queries [1]. Query 11 seems to be one that causes > the > > most stress. I then compared the performance executing query 11 against > an > > xml file on the filesystem compared with importing it into a database and > > timing the query against the database: > > > > * Running from a database 36sec > > * Running from a file 9secs > > > > The xml was generated using > > xmlgen /f 0.1 /o test.xml > > > > This does not seem right to me. I was expecting the database to be > faster. > > /Andy > > [1] http://www.ins.cwi.nl/projects/xmark/Assets/xmlquery.txt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BaseX-Talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/basex-talk > > >
_______________________________________________ BaseX-Talk mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/basex-talk
