Hi Christian, The difference between C and Assembly is a lot smaller than between C and XQ, and I think memory management should not be taken lightly (I'm not saying you do). In OP's case, I believe keys could be discarded while memory layout remains intact.
Cheers, Wouter Op 16 jul. 2017 12:52 schreef "Christian Grün" <[email protected]>: Hi Wouter, In my experience, XQuery maps can be surprisingly efficient, even if millions of items need to be processed. Obviously, no programming language solves all problems best, though (even today, an assembler language can a better choice than C). Did you come across particular use cases in which it turned out that XQuery maps and arrays were not the best choice? What do you believe was the critical factor (memory consumption, runtime, …)? Cheers, Christian On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, W.S. Hager <[email protected]> wrote: > Fact of the matter is that if a low level optimization can be made, it must > be made outside of XQuery. I assume it happens all the time. But sure, it > depends on the use case. > > Op 15 jul. 2017 22:47 schreef "Michael Kay" <[email protected]>: > >> >> Obviously this operation could be implemented in the host language to make >> it truly efficient. > > Don't assume that other languages are inevitably more efficient than XQuery. > > And don't assume that the cost of moving/converting data from one > programming language to another is negligible. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
