This is a performance bug I submitted a while ago.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12624

Also has anyone been able to look at this one. I get about
1 message / week telling me it does not work. The problem
is not in the SQL extension but the Axis walker that traverses
the data.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12337

Thanks
John G

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Users have been reporting performance regressions in XalanJ 2.4.0 compared
> to XalanJ 2.3.1 and other earlier releases.   Some of these have already
> been fixed in the current CVS or have patches attached.  For example:
>
> Bug #11661 [http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11661]:
> xsl:key very slow!
> Bug #13299 [http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13299]
> Transformation very slow compare to xalan 2.2D11
> Bug #13501 [http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13501]
> Serious performance regression on select-child-last
>
> We're also planning to review:
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12486: XPathContext.reset
> () does unnecessary memory allocations
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12481 Method
> DTMManager.newInstance  causes unnecessary memory consumption
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12687 Class
> org.apache.xml.dtm.ref.ExpandedNameTable allocates String pools, but never
> uses it
>
> The XalanJ team is planning to have a XalanJ 2.4.1 release to bring the
> performance back in line with (or better than!) earlier releases.  Since
> several patches are already in, we are targetting this for end of next
> week.
>
> If anyone knows of other open bugs, related to performance regressions,
> that should be included, let us know!
>
> Oh, while we're at it, we'll  move up to  XercesJ 2.2.0.
>
> Ilene.

--
--------------------------------------
John Gentilin
Eye Catching Solutions Inc.
18314 Carlwyn Drive
Castro Valley CA 94546

    Contact Info
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ca Office 1-510-881-4821
NJ Office 1-732-422-4917



Reply via email to