We recently switched an app from using XPathAPI to CachedXPathAPI and saw huge performance improvements, especially on documents with large amounts of Nodes (makes sense). However, we have recently found the same application has slowed down somewhat when applied to a different set of documents, which have much smaller amounts of Nodes. We have not finished profiling, but there is some preliminary evidence pointing to CachedXPathAPI.
Obviously reusing CachedXPathAPI is a performance gain, but is there an overhead in the cases where it can’t be reused? Specifically, we throw out the CachedXPathAPI whenever the DOM is modified, which depending on the data, could lead us to using the CachedXPathAPI just once before discarding. In this scenario, can CachedXPathAPI be slower than XPathAPI? Or should they perform equivalent? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CachedXPathAPI-performance-hit--tp24963297p24963297.html Sent from the Xalan - J - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
