Hi HolgeR,
There could be many reasons for the outcome:
1. Xalan-C might not do well on some of the tests performed.
2. Xalan-C has not seen much work lately, and there are lots of
optimizations in Xalan-J which could be applied which would help improve
performance.
3. They may have chosen a bad platform for Xalan-C. Xalan-C is
sensitive to the quality of code generated by the compiler for a
particular platform, and some platforms don't do well. For example, GCC
on Linux does not always do a good job optimizing.
4. Older versions of Xalan-C may not produce the same results that newer
versions do. If an older version is used for the benchmark, the results
may not be as good as they would be if a newer version were used.
It's very curious, because there are such conflicting reports. Dmitre
Novatchev stated in was unfortunate that he couldn't get timing information
out of Xalan-C, because he felt it was one of the fastest processors.
Others have also stated they've switched from Xalan-J to Xalan-C for speed
reasons.
Lastly, they may not be considering other factors which would affect
performance in a production environment. I'm pretty sure Xalan-C will have
a lower memory footprint than Xalan-J, or than most other Java processors,
for that matter. That would certainly affect performance in a
multithreaded server environment.
Dave
P.S. Is there an online version of this article, perhaps translated into
English?
|---------+--------------------------->
| | Holger Fl�rke |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | ic.de> |
| | |
| | 06/29/2003 11:27|
| | PM |
| | Please respond |
| | to xalan-dev |
|---------+--------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc: (bcc: David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)
|
| Subject: Benchmarks (XalanC + XalanJ)
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi there,
in a german computer magazin (Heiko W. Rupp, "Geschwindigkeitsrausch -
Leistungsfaehigkeit von XSLT-Prozessoren", iX 7/03) was an article about
XSLT
benchmarking. The author has referenced two benchmarks: XSLTMark and
XSLTBench. I had
a *short* look at Sarvegas XSLTBench (www.sarvega.com) and found XalanC and
XalanJ
are worse than the average and are beaten by eg saxon and msxml. There are
only one
test, where XalanC is faster than saxon.
Anybody had a closer look at theese benchmarks? Especially: Why should
XalanC be
slower than most of the Java processors? Are there any other "accepted"
benchmarks?
HolgeR
--
holger floerke d o c t r o n i c
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] information publishing + retrieval
phone +49 2222 9292 90 http://www.doctronic.de
