"Rene de Visser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if you replace parsec, HXT is itself not
> incremental. (It stores the whole XML document in memory as a tree,
> and the tree is not memory effecient.
If the usage pattern of the tree is search-and-discard, then only enough
of the tree to satis
Rene de Visser wrote:
> "Matthew Pocock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Thursday 24 January 2008, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
> >> Matthew Pocock wrote:
> >> > I've been using hxt to process xml files. Now that my files are getting
> >> > a
> >> > bit bigg
Hello Rene,
Friday, January 25, 2008, 10:49:53 PM, you wrote:
> Still I am a bit surprised that you can't parse 30m with 8 gig memory.
> This was discussed here before, and I think someone benchmarked HXT as using
> roughly 50 bytes of memory per 1 byte of input.
> i.e. HXT would then be using a
"Matthew Pocock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thursday 24 January 2008, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
>> Matthew Pocock wrote:
>> > I've been using hxt to process xml files. Now that my files are getting
>> > a
>> > bit bigger (30m) I'm finding that hxt uses in
