Hi, > The speed of the SAX benchmark looks suspicious. I have a small > Expat-based benchmark that on a 1.8Ghz Opteron gives 35MByte/s > throughput. Their benchmark claims about 20MByte/s on a 1.7Ghz > Pentium M. This seems a bit too fast especially if you consider > that Java SAX API converts UTF-8 to UTF-16 while Expat does not.
OK, thanks, this is very helpful. > I did not study their benchmark code in detail, but one thing > I noticed is that they do not set any event handlers. This is > not very realistic and can be exploited by the parser (for > example, the parser may see that there is no characters handler > and not transcode the text to UTF-16). > > As David said, to get any meaningful results you need to make > sure you are comparing comparable things. So here is what I wanna do: my intention is not to compare SAX parsers against each other. I just wanna have a reasonable result a good C/C++ SAX parser gives with standard parameters and /without/ validation on my machine. > In our benchmark[1] we get about 12MByte/s *validating* SAX > throughput with Xerces-C++ on 1.8Ghz Opteron. One thing you > may want to check is that you have validation disabled > since all the Ximpleware benchmarks are non-validating. > > > [1] http://www.codesynthesis.com/projects/xsdbench/ The link is very helpful. I will have a closer look at these benchmarks and probably adapt them and run on my machine. I guess that's exactly wat I looked for. By the way: is there any way to provide SAX parsers with DTDs not for validation purposes but for speedup. In particular, are there any SAX parsers that assume valid documents and use the DTD for internal optimizations? Thanks Michael __________________________________________________________________________ Erweitern Sie FreeMail zu einem noch leistungsstärkeren E-Mail-Postfach! Mehr Infos unter http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021131
