I tested the your string port version and I also wrote a "string-append"
version of the xml reader and they are both slower by about 10-15% on my
machine, when compared to the current read-xml implementation which uses
`list->string`. It looks like `list->string` is not the bottleneck here.
I suggested using `string-append` because in my own performance
investigations with reading 100Mb+ CSV files: constructing short tokens
using string-append is faster than using a string port -- perhaps there is
a fixed overhead with using string ports which makes `string-append` faster
for
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 11:30:27PM +0200, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> Thanks Alex for pointing out the use of list->string. I've created a PR (
> https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3275) that changes that code to use
> string ports instead (similar to Hendrik's suggestion, but the string port
>
Thanks Alex for pointing out the use of list->string. I've created a PR (
https://github.com/racket/racket/pull/3275) that changes that code to use
string ports instead (similar to Hendrik's suggestion, but the string port
handles resizing automatically). Could someone (John?) with some large XML
If anyone wants to optimize `read-xml` for particular classes of use,
without changing the interface, it might be very helpful to run your
representative tests using the statistical profiler.
The profiler text report takes a little while of tracing through
manually to get a feel for how to
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 05:16:34PM -0700, Alex Harsanyi wrote:
> Looking at the source for `read-xml`, it seems to be using `list->string`
> in several places. That is, it reads characters one-by-one and constructs
> a list by appending a character to the end of it, than calls `list->string`
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
