Graaf, Edgar de (fin) wrote: >Hi, > >Recently I installed the TreeProcessor instead of compiling. Everyone says >it is faster then compiling the sitemap, so I didn't test it. Then I >installed Saxon and tot test Saxon I did a Jmeter test. My application >collapsed from 6 seconds average response time to 20 seconds!? So I put >xalan back, 27 seconds!? Then I put the compiled version back and I got 6 >seconds.... my question to you is: > >Does anybody know why this could be? Does the TreeProcessor cost more >memory? (I only have 196 MB) Are there some bugs in certain versions of the >TreeProcessor? Or is the TreeProcessor just not scaleable? > >Thanks, > >Edgar > >
The TreeProcessor is way faster at *loading* a sitemap, since it doesn't require code generation and compilation. On my 1GHz / 512 Mb / P3 / win2k PC, load time of the (large) samples sitemap fell from 20 seconds to less than 1 second. Now for runtime execution, tests showed between 0 and 10% speed increase *with a HotSpot VM* (JDK 1.3.1). If you don't use a HotSpot VM, it's very likely that the TreeProcessor will be much slower than the compiled one. Are you using a HotSpot VM ? If yes, you also have to give it some "warm-up" time before actually measuring performance. Anyway, my tests were rather limited and I would be interested if people had the time and tools to perform more in-depth performance comparisons between the two engines. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies Apache Cocoon http://www.anyware-tech.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
