Were the conditions of the two runs exactly the same? For example, if you were timing the first run of the Xerces parser and the second run of the Crimson parser, caching could account for much of the difference.
Also, such items as configuration differences can have a large impact. If you were using the default amount of memory, perhaps Xerces would benefit from a change in that setting while Crimson may be more efficient in its use of memory and not suffer from using the default. Thus, changing configuration could account for at least some of the difference. Your mention that "This library give very poor performance where xml file is large" makes me think memory may be part of the difference. I'm sure other issues could factor into it as well. Of course, Crimson may simply be a much faster parser. I have heard good things about Crimson from a number of quarters. Jay Bryant Bryant Communication Services (presently consulting at Synergistic Solution Technologies) "Xaus, Jaume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/23/2005 05:50 AM Please respond to [email protected] To <[email protected]> cc Subject FOP improvement up to 3000%. Dear friends, We are using FOP api in order to build PDF documents from large Xml files. The FOP package distribution contains Xerces as xml parser. ([Debug] Using org.apache.xerces.parsers.SAXParser as SAX2 Parser) This library give very poor performance where xml file is large. We improved up to 3000% the performance simplement changin Xerces for Crimson library.([Debug] Using org.apache.crimson.parser.XMLReaderImpl as SAX2 Parser) Does anyone know the reason off this performance difference ? Thanks Jaume Xaus Director Departament Java [EMAIL PROTECTED] “La confianza, como el arte, nunca proviene de tener todas las respuestas, sino de estar abierto a todas la preguntas.” Earl Gray Stevens. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 22/09/2005
