Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 2002-07-11 16:15 +0100, DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No, but it looks like the xslt 2 group-by would be along the right lines, a solution based roughly along the lines of what you have below is still running 15 minutes later. Yes, using the source node tree for every check will be slow. Though I hadn't used the generate-id test for uniqueness Ken, that would be a more efficient solution, I'll try it. I think the efficiencies in my proposal (if they are there) will be found in the use of the variables, not in the comparison, because my solution will have the minimal number of accesses to the source node tree. Note that my solution does have restrictions compared to the key() approach, since my solution doesn't work on node sets. But as I showed with the test it will work with the criteria you've listed. I'm curious to know your improvement in execution time (if any) compared to what you have been running for so very long. ......................... Ken
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995) ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT and XPath ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath ISBN 1-894049-07-1 Practical Formatting Using XSLFO XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML/OmniMark services, books (electronic, printed), articles, training (instructor-live,Internet-live,web/CD,licensed) Next public training: 2002-08-05,26,27,09-30,10-03 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
