Rajiv Mordani wrote: > On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Mike Pogue wrote: > > 2) Crimson has a DOM implementation that is particularly interesting. > > It has been reported that it "scales better" as the size of an XML > > document goes up, but that is not my experience (but, I've been looking > > only at Windows NT, so this could again be a Sparc/Windows difference). > > This could be due to differences in memory consumption, or something > > else altogether. We should be able to figure out what's going on here, > > and get the best of both worlds. Because the Xerces DOM is pluggable, > > we might need to end up with two DOM's that are optimized for two > > different things: a) the current deferred DOM is optimized for > > performance, but maybe not for memory consumption, and b) perhaps the > > Crimson DOM is optimized for memory consumption. > > The differences were in the SAX parsing. In DOM there was no difference on > windows / Sparc. On both the platforms the crimson dom parser scales > better in both the time to create the DOM and the size of the files. > > - Rajiv
That has not been my experience in our tests, where the Xerces-DOM was better on initial parse, and on subsequent traversal/use of the tree. We should compare tests! We might have missed something here...How much memory do you give the thing when you run it? Maybe that's one difference that we haven't accounted for... Mike P.S. REMINDER: PLEASE MOVE TO THE XERCES-J-DEV MAILING LIST!!
