It is a little bit like comparing apples and oranges: Xalan is an incredible XSLT processor. Its implementation of XPath is really, really fast (just don't use XPathAPI, use CachedXPathAPI instead).
JXPath is a highly flexible interpreter that applies the XPath syntax to mixed data models: it is not designed to be the fastest on DOM structures. Rather, it is optimized for general object graph traversal. To summarize: if you need a high-performance XPath processor for DOM, go with Xalan. If you need to traverse heterogeneous object graphs, go with JXPath. 'Simple as that. I hope this helps. - Dmitri ----- Original Message ----- From: "Snehal Khanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: Re: JXPath Performance > Hi Dmitri, > > Have you done any tests comparing the performance of > JXPath to Xalan? It is imperative in my project to use > a really fast XPath engine so, it would be good to > know how much gain in performance we are talking about > here - especially for the case I mentioned earlier. > > Regards, > ~Snehal > > > --- Dmitri Plotnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > JXPath is designed to work with heterogeneous > > models, including > > JavaBeans, Maps, Collections etc, as well as DOM, > > JDOM, etc. To > > accomodate all this variety, JXPath inevitable > > produces some overhead. > > For example it creates a bunch of NodePointer > > objects during the > > evaluation of an XPath. You wouldn't need such > > objects if you only > > worked with XML (DOM, JDOM). Thus, JXPath is slower > > than for instance > > Xalan, which manages to allocate almost zero > > objects. > > > > I am currently working on some behind-the-scenes > > integration between > > JXPath and Xalan. Once that's complete, JXPath > > performance will be > > similar to that of Xalan, as long as you are working > > exclusively with > > XML. > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > - Dmitri > > > > > > --- Snehal Khanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We are in the process of evaluating two > > > implementations of XPath namely JXPath and > > jd.xpath > > > from www.aztecrider.com > > > > > > In our evaluations we have noticed that for XPath > > > expressions resulting in a node set with 100 > > nodes, > > > the performance of jd.xpath is superior to the > > > performance of JXPath. It looks like JXpath loses > > out > > > on performance while iterating through the > > results. > > > > > > For XPath expressions resulting in a single node > > > output, the performance is comparable if we use > > > compiled expressions. > > > > > > Has anyone else performed a similar analysis? Are > > > there any known performance issues with JXPath > > that > > > are currently being addressed? In general what is > > the > > > development plan for JXPath in terms of > > performance > > > improvements and enhancements? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Snehal > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. > > Try it! > > > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
