• From: Ken North <ken_north@c...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:11:15 -0800

> In one example, it seems people are using XML as an abstraction
> between the application and database more and more.  This puts a
> strain on the throughput for these types of applications where
> database activity is high.

In one early XML/EDI example, an EDIFACT message ballooned from  < 1K to 11K
when coded as XML/EDI. However, that's not nearly the most serious
bottleneck in distributed applications.

Network latency, flawed application design (e.g., not pooling database
connections), poorly-designed databases, and poorly-optimized queries all
contribute a greater performance penalty than the difference between using
text or binary message formats.

==============  Ken North =================
See you at XML DevCon 2001
London (February 21-23)        New York (April 8-11)
www.xmldevcon2001.com
========================================

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Danny Ayers <danny@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@d...>
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Paul Cody Johnston <pcj@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by Date: why importNode error like this
• Previous by thread: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by thread: RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread