Please send a full script and data so I can try to reproduce the
problem. i.e. your xml-bm-libxml.rb script.
Dan
On Nov 28, 2007, at 08:45, mortee wrote:
> I've posted what I've found out. Do you have any idea of a cause/
> solution?
>
> mortee
>
> Trans wrote:
>> mortee, do you think you can
I've posted what I've found out. Do you have any idea of a cause/solution?
mortee
Trans wrote:
> mortee, do you think you can run this through a profiler and see what
> you come up with?
>
> T.
___
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
Trans wrote:
> mortee, do you think you can run this through a profiler and see what
> you come up with?
Here's what I could produce. I'd gladly say I hope this provides some
meaningful insight to some of you, but the results don't seem to be too
informative...
As you can see, the 40 secs delay (
On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, mortee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ head -18 ./xml-bm2.rb
> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
> require 'benchmark'
> require 'hpricot'
> require 'xml/libxml'
>
> xml = DATA.read
>
> Benchmark.bmbm { |b|
> b.report('hpricot') do
> Hpricot::XML(xml).search('data').each{}
>
Did you have a location for the delay?
On Nov 7, 2007, at 13:49, mortee wrote:
> I just set out to do some simple measurements to see how fast
> libxml may
> be compared to hpricot.
>
> I made a little script with a ~4 megs XML document appended after
> __END__.
>
> $ uname -s
> CYGWIN_NT-5.1
The timing info is curious because libxml does the job with very
little cpu time, it is the real-time delay that is the problem.
On identifying the location of the delay (since it is wall-clock time
we are talking about), it should be sufficient to do splits between
each method call (coul
The timing info is curious because libxml does the job with very
little cpu time, it is the real-time delay that is the problem.
On identifying the location of the delay (since it is wall-clock time
we are talking about), it should be sufficient to do splits between
each method call (could j
On Nov 7, 2007 1:49 PM, mortee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just set out to do some simple measurements to see how fast libxml may
> be compared to hpricot.
>
> I made a little script with a ~4 megs XML document appended after __END__.
>
> $ uname -s
> CYGWIN_NT-5.1
> $ gem list libxml
>
> *** LO
I just set out to do some simple measurements to see how fast libxml may
be compared to hpricot.
I made a little script with a ~4 megs XML document appended after __END__.
$ uname -s
CYGWIN_NT-5.1
$ gem list libxml
*** LOCAL GEMS ***
libxml-ruby (0.5.2.0)
LibXML2 bindings for Ruby
$ head -1
