Jim Morrison [Mailinglists] wrote: > [Marked with "----" ] (Try a real mail client ;-)
> Interesting you should say that? I was under the impression that the C > version of Xalan was very quick? I am, in some cases running off 100 or > so transformations in one run, through quite complicated xslt's and > despite the fact that for every transformation my dodgy perl code builds > the XML from collections of flat xml files on disk, which then has to > get parsed.. (and in many cases more XML is brought in through > "document()"... I'm still getting a good 800 - 900 pages per minute.. > (on a little 500Mhz Celeron, 256Mb) > > Would LibXML perform better you think?? Is there somewhere I can find a > comparison?? Yes, LibXML and LibXSLT are faster, simply because the underlying libxml2 and libxslt processors are the fastest there are available - I think some people's tests now show them to be faster even than Microsoft's (which was always the benchmark to beat). I do still wonder why people get the impression you were given - it's widely known that the C version of Xalan is appallingly slow - slower even than it's Java counterpart. Matt.
