Interesting. Your results confirm the anomaly that separating the
parsing and validation steps results in a significant performance
improvement. Some questions:
*) Are the documents using the same bindings from the same schema?
*) Are they of comparable complexity
*) If you run the same test s
Hi,
I come back to you with a few values from the performance tests using this
piece of code:
try:
# Measure process time for parsing and validating
print ">> Parse and validate"
t0 = time.clock()
parse_and_validate = my_bindings.CreateFromDocument(file_test)
print time.clock
I will perform a few tests tomorrow with the same machine that I was using
(to be consistent).
I came up with this performance issue because as a C++ user, I use
CodeSynthesis XSD which parses and validates the same message in a few
seconds.
One idea was to eventually develop a C++ extension (wit
Well, I do not think it is unfortunate at this point.
As a newuser I would rather have accuracy as opposed to speed (though I
respect that others may be in a different situation).
-Tim
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 06:33 -0700, Peter A. Bigot wrote:
> Unfortunately, performance took a back seat to vali
Unfortunately, performance took a back seat to validation for the
current implementation. The example in examples/tmsxtvd has been the
sole performance benchmark so far. On my machine, it shows:
vmfed9[26]$ python dumpsample.py
Generating binding from tmsdatadirect_sample.xml with minidom
