Henrik Sundberg wrote:
I was thinking of the files from the "memory hog" discussions found at
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=101
The unzipped XML (SXC) is 286 MB.
Well... alright, if you have a file that large, the file size makes
quite a difference. I was talking about typical files. For something
that large I would question the wisdom of using XML at all. A database
seems like the right tool. Obviously XML isn't the right tool for every
job. You wouldn't want to store images or music on XML.
Almost 5 times larger than OOo. The
MS XML equivalent was 193 MB. It is my firm belief that the parsing
time of the difference (93 MB) is noticeable.
The time required to parse 93MB is negligible compared to the time
required to *swap* 93MB. Memory and CPUs are several orders of magnitude
faster than disc access.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
