Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > The problem, which I've expressed more than once, is to compare the > performance for the alternatives of using text XML vs. some post-parse > representation of XML documents. For the reasons given in my earlier > email I'm chosing to base my timing comparisons on the parse event > stream. But presumably the alternative "quasi-xml" you will be testing will not likely be producing SAX events, but instead some proprietary parse system instead. Do you mean that you want to write a proprietary - to - textual xml file and compare that with writing a SAX-to-textual xml file? I'm not sure that would be a fair comparison, either. Some of the alternative "formats" - I guess I may as well call them that - are intended mainly for reducing transmission time or size, and for them this might be a reasonable comparison. But others are intended to go right from the transmission into in-memory structures. For them, this comparison method seems unfair. A better comparison would perhaps be to have a SAX handler to create equivalent data structures. In other words, any comparisons should be done using the main intended use case for the alternative, as best as possible. Streaming out to a text file may not fit. Cheers, Tom P
|
