>       SAXON did improve the performance more than 10 times 
> comparing to
> XALAN. I wonder why people are still using XALAN. Are there 
> any specific
> areas where XALAN performs better than SAXON??

I'll leave others to answer those questions...
> 
> I have one more question. Is there any difference in performance using
> 'Saxon-SA' comparing to 'Saxon-B'?

The answer is that most of the time it makes no difference, but some of the
time it makes a big difference, because there are one or two optimizations
in Saxon-SA that are not present in Saxon-B: these are generally related to
performing joins.

In fairness, some people have reported that the start-up time for Saxon-B
can be a little faster: this is because there is less code, so the JVM loads
it more quickly.

> Anyhow I will try SAXON-SA in coming
> weeks. Good work Mike, your parser is a super fast engine.

Thanks.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/