[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
1. Xalan-C might not do well on some of the tests performed.The point is, Xalan-C 1.3 is slower than saxon in 14 of 15 (nearly all) tests.
In the study Xalan-J 2.3.1 is slower than saxon in all the tests and slower than Xalan-C 1.3 in 13 of 15 tests.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.
They have tested Xalan-C 1.3, the benchmark is available (http://www.sarvega.com). I run the saxon/xalanc tests on my Win32 (W2KSP3) machine (PIII 800MHz) with Xalan-C 1.5. I found Xalan-C 1.5 is *faster than saxon* in 10 of 15 tests. This may be the result of a) the win32 platform, b) the newer version of Xalan-C or c) the slower processor. Maybe I run some other tests to answer this question.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.
Hey, don't question yourself or Xalan-C. I like Xalan-C. I had written an article for a german XML magazin (Holger Floerke, "XML-Verarbeitung in C++", Der Entwickler (XML Magazin), 1/2002, Software&Support Verlag - no English version available). The conclusion is: If you have to transform *large* documents (espacially for converting publikation data), you *have to* use Xalan-C because of the small memory usage. Xalan-C is good, small, and fast.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.
Maybe such benchmarks can help us to concentrate on real bottlenecks. In this case there is one test, where Xalan-C achieves only 17% of the performance of saxon.
There is only one picture of the article (an errata) online:P.S. Is there an online version of this article, perhaps translated into English?
http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2003/07/104/xslt-proz.bench-korr.tiff
On the left side you see the different processors (without Xalan-C). The x-axis is performance relative to saxon/linux.
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
