Hi Dennis, I have no real clue of what could have happened to slow down that much the performance, maybe some reference are not cleared during the marshalling/unmarshalling process. We plan to do a profiling of Castor once we are feature complete. To optimize the performance, I advise you to use Xerces 2.Is there a place where we can see the results of your test cases?
Arnaud > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:dms@;sosnoski.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 11:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [castor-dev] XML binding performance > > I've run some timing tests for XML binding performance and was > surprised > to see that more recent versions are considerably slower than > 0.9.3.9 > (the earliest one I tested). In my tests 0.9.4 takes a minimum of > about > 10% longer than 0.9.3.9 for marshalling and unmarshalling with code > generated from Schema, while for mapped bindings the difference is > more > like 20-30%. In the worst case (a couple of fairly large files, > 100-200KB, using mapped bindings) 0.9.4 takes about 50% longer than > 0.9.3.9. These times are using the Sun 1.4.1 JVM on Linux (1.3.1 > shows > about the same differences, though mapped binding performance is > considerably slower overall on 1.3.1 - probably because of the > reflection optimizations in 1.4). > > I'd noticed this at least as far back as 0.9.3.21 (I didn't try > anything > in between 0.9.3.9 and 0.9.3.21). About half the XML is mapped to > Strings, a quarter to ints and a quarter to object ids. Anyone have > an > clues why there'd be such a big drop in performance? > > - Dennis > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: > unsubscribe castor-dev ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
