On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:06:31AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > A series of benchmarks comparing XML parsers is described in two > articles at www.xml.com : > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/05/09/xml-parser-benchmarks-part-1.html > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/05/16/xml-parser-benchmarks-part-2.html > > Part 1 compares event-driven (SAX-like) parsers; part 2 compares object > model (DOM-like) parsers. Quoting from the conclusions: > > (Part 1): "Overall the SAX-like implementation of LIBXML2 in C performs > best in all benchmarks." > (Part 2): "From the above presented benchmarks, LIBXML2 can be > considered as the overall performance winner for object model parsers." > > So congratulations to Daniel and other contributors - libxml2 wins on > all fronts!
That's cool, though I'm always a bit vary of benchmarks, it's very easy to get one thing wrong and generate inapropriate results, but it's still nice. The point of expat missing that Michael raised is also spot on even if expat doesn't really have a DOM (like) mode. Just as an example if you use xmlParseFile() instead of xmlReadFile(), you use the older version of the parser which doesn't rely on dictionnaries and the speed is quite lower, knowing this requires a bit more knowledge than just what is needed to put a benchmark graph out ;-) Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
