Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 11/30/16 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, I updated docbook-style-xsl to 1.79.1 from Fedora rawhide (building
>> and installing that was quite painless btw, didn't need a pile of build
>> dependencies like I'd feared it would take).
On 11/30/16 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> OK, I got it. The component of concern is the DocBook XSL stylesheets,
>> called docbook-style-xsl on RH-like systems (docbook-xsl on Debian). If
>> it runs too slow, it's probably too old.
>
Alexander Law writes:
> Hello Alvaro,
> It's caused by the condition
> ...
> in the simple.xlink template
> (docbook/stylesheet/docbook-xsl/xhtml/inline.xsl). (This test executed
> for each xlink (~ 9 times)).
> Yes, it's inefficient but it doesn't affect build time
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> It does much more intensive work with IO - I have feeling like there are
> intensive fsync.
You could prove that, by running "make html" under "strace -f -e
trace=fsync" etc. I just tried that, and I don't see any fsync. I
guess you could try other syscalls, or simply
2016-12-01 5:37 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane :
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > OK, I got it. The component of concern is the DocBook XSL stylesheets,
> > called docbook-style-xsl on RH-like systems (docbook-xsl on Debian). If
> > it runs too slow,
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> OK, I got it. The component of concern is the DocBook XSL stylesheets,
> called docbook-style-xsl on RH-like systems (docbook-xsl on Debian). If
> it runs too slow, it's probably too old.
OK, I updated docbook-style-xsl to 1.79.1
On 11/30/16 1:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, speed may be the least of its problems. I just noticed that it's
> inserting commas at random places in syntax summaries :-(. For instance,
> the "overlay" entry in table 9.8 looks like
>
> overlay(string, placing
> string, from int [for int])
>
I wrote:
> Still sucks for me on an up-to-date RHEL6 box: about 1m5s to build oldhtml,
> about 4m50s to build html, both starting after "make maintainer-clean" in
> the doc/src/sgml/ subdirectory.
However, speed may be the least of its problems. I just noticed that it's
inserting commas at
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 11/16/16 3:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On my machine and on the build farm, the performance now almost matches
>> the DSSSL build.
Still sucks for me on an up-to-date RHEL6 box: about 1m5s to build oldhtml,
about 4m50s to
On 11/16/16 3:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Build HTML documentation using XSLT stylesheets by default
>>>
>>> The old DSSSL build is still available for a while using the make
>>> target
>>> "oldhtml".
>>
>> This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
>> 'oldhtml'.
On 2016-11-17 02:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/16/16 1:14 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
real5m21.348s -- for 'make -j 8 html'
versus
real1m8.502s -- for 'make -j 8 oldhtml'
Centos 6.6 - I suppose it's getting a bit old, I don't know if that's
the cause of the discrepancy with other's
On 11/16/16 1:14 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> real5m21.348s -- for 'make -j 8 html'
> versus
> real1m8.502s -- for 'make -j 8 oldhtml'
>
> Centos 6.6 - I suppose it's getting a bit old, I don't know if that's
> the cause of the discrepancy with other's measurements.
I tested the build
On 11/16/16 1:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Now admittedly this conversion didn't do one bit towards the goal I
> wanted to achieve: that each doc source file ended up as a valid XML
> file that could be processed separately with tools like xml2po. They
> are still SGML only -- in particular no
Erik Rijkers writes:
> On 2016-11-16 21:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I have committed another patch to improve the build performance a bit.
>> Could you check again?
> It is indeed better (three minutes off, nice) but still:
> real5m21.348s -- for 'make -j 8 html'
> versus
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
> > 'oldhtml'.
>
> I have committed another patch to improve the build performance a bit.
> Could you check again?
After the optimization, on my laptop it takes 2:31 with the new system
and 1:58
On 2016-11-16 21:59, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/16/16 6:29 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
'oldhtml'.
I have committed another patch to improve the build performance a bit.
Could you check again?
It is indeed better (three
On 11/16/16 6:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What was the improvement we were hoping for, again?
Get off an ancient and unmaintained tool chain.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via
On 11/16/16 12:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> "make check" still uses DSSSL though. Is that intentional? Is it going
> to be changed?
It doesn't use DSSSL. Is uses nsgmls to parse the SGML, which is a
different thing that will be addressed in a separate step.
So, yes, but later.
--
Peter
On 11/16/16 6:09 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Btw., shouldn't the output web site pages have encoding declarations?
>
> That gets sent in the http header, doesn't it?
That's probably alright, but it would be nicer if the documents were
self-contained.
--
Peter Eisentraut
On 11/16/16 6:29 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2016-11-16 08:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Build HTML documentation using XSLT stylesheets by default
>>
>> The old DSSSL build is still available for a while using the make
>> target
>> "oldhtml".
>
> This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On the buildfarm crake has gone from about 2 minutes to about 3.5 minutes to
> run "make doc". That's not good but it's not an eight-fold increase either.
On my MacBook, "time make docs" as of
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Rijkers writes:
>> This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
>> 'oldhtml'.
>
> I'm just discovering the same.
>
>> I'd say that is a strong disadvantage.
>
> I'd say that is flat
On 11/16/2016 09:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Rijkers writes:
This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
'oldhtml'.
I'm just discovering the same.
I'd say that is a strong disadvantage.
I'd say that is flat out unacceptable. I won't ever use this
Erik Rijkers writes:
> This xslt build takes 8+ minutes, compared to barely 1 minute for
> 'oldhtml'.
I'm just discovering the same.
> I'd say that is a strong disadvantage.
I'd say that is flat out unacceptable. I won't ever use this toolchain
if it's that much slower than
24 matches
Mail list logo