Good point David. I'm always skeptical when companies put out
benchmarks comparing their products to other ones.
I have run tests for both versions and the C++ impl. is much
faster. I have seen no case where it is slower. We have found
that we can also use the C++ version from Java, which makes our
transformations much faster.
Mike
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well the second benchmark was performed with the 0.40 release,
> which was
> still alpha, so I won't bother to respond to that one.
>
> The XSLTMark benchmark is another matter. I've already
> responded to this
> both on the Xalan list and the Mulberry XSL list. Basically,
> this was a
> flawed benchmark. Their drivers for Xalan-J, Xalan-C, and
> Saxon included
> the overhead of parsing the XML documents in the timings.
> Since they were
> parsing documents up to 100 times, you can imagine what this
> would do to
> the results.
>
> In addition, their Xalan-C driver was hopelessly flawed,
> including a really
> outrageous memory leak.
>
> You should also know that Datamark is an XML vendor, so you
> should consider
> that when evaluating their "benchmark" suite.
>
> In the end, you should do your own testing for performance,
> since results
> will vary depending on the input document and the stylesheet.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> "Weber, Heiko"
>
> <heiko.weber@individua To:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> l-web.net> cc:
> (bcc: David N Bertoni/CAM/Lotus)
>
> Subject:
> RE: Why is Xalan for C++ slower than the Java version?
> 06/19/2001 02:26 PM
>
> Please respond to
>
> xalan-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Dave,
>
> I found the following two benchmarks:
>
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/03/28/xsltmark/results.html
> http://www.tfi-technology.com/xml/xslbench.html
>
> Both claim the Java version to be faster than the C++ version,
> but both used older C++ versions than Java versions. How did
> the C++ version perform in your tests? I had expected the
> C++ version to be much faster than the Java version, so I was
> really surprised by these results.
>
> thanks,
> Heiko
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 19.06.2001 17:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Why is Xalan for C++ slower than the Java
> version?
>
>
> To which benchmarks are you referring? Our testing shows
> Xalan-C++ to
> be
> generally faster than the Java version.
>
> Dave
>
>
> (See attached file: winmail.dat)
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/octet-stream name=winmail.dat
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
