[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, Michael Kay wrote: > I have been doing some performance comparisons of different Java XML > tree models, as used by Saxon, and the results may be of general > interest: > > http://dev.saxonica.com/blog/mike/2012/09/index.html#000194 > > Of course, this is a measurement of one particular workload and the > results may not extrapolate to other workloads. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > What a coincidence ... I have just this week been doing a performance comparison that is somewhat similar to that. I compared Saxon TinyTree with JDOM's XPath 1.0 implementation in a common use case for our platform: mapping XML documents to Java entity objects. I did find a substantial improvement using TinyTree, although nothing like the amount that you demonstrate. Our test involves running a large number of independent XPath expressions. These expressions are typically simple, involving one or two child steps and mostly no function calls. I saw a 30-40% improvement moving from Saxon to JDOM (so JDOM numbers about 1.5 on the scale in your blog post). I'm not sure why the numbers are at such a variance to those you report, but there are a number of differences between what we've done that could explain it: I used JDOM XPath with JDOM Documents; I guess it might be interesting to compare Saxon XPath. Also, the expressions we tested were extremely simple, and it seems likely that differences are less noticeable in that case. At any rate, the difference is significant enough that we will definitely be moving towards switching our data model to TinyTree. I expect to see additional gains beyond what I've measured due to lowered memory footprint, and we have not yet measured any impact on XSLT performance, which should also improve substantially based on what you report. -Mike Sokolov
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



