Hi Michael,
I recently fixed a performance problem in the SAX2 parser; could you
try using the SAX1 parser (via the SAXCount example) just to double check?
Alberto
At 23.43 08/03/2007 +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
> Benchmarks are a very tricky thing. Are those Java parsers all
> full-conformant? How the machines on which those parsers were tested
> differ from yours? I would not trust a benchmark that is not carefully
> designed and controlled.
ok, thanks for this statement. I was talking about these benchmarks
(JDKs builtin SAX parser).
http://www.ximpleware.com/benchmark1.html
(the SAX values, Java SDK
> Xerces-C can be very sensitive to several factors, including the compiler
> used to build the binaries, and the OS memory allocation functions. Since
> you don't mention your OS or compiler, it's hard to say if
there's anything
> you can do to get better results.
I'm running Ubuntu Linux 6.06 on a 2.0GHz Dua Core with 1GB RAM
available. I compiled the xerces libraries from source, using
gcc/g++ and optimization level -03. I was just wondering about this
performance difference as my processor is even better as the one
used in the experiments above and they used a Java system instead of
C++. If you have any hints on how to speed up my system I would be
really interested in...
Michael
_________________________________________________________________________
In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten!
Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114
