We're not quite done yet... ;-)
=20
Here are some numbers that reflect the differences with the larger
files. This set is 57,952 files (6,256,488,243 bytes), many of which are
several megabyte log file dumps to HTML (average file size for this set
is 107,959 bytes). These are especially problematic for the Swing
parser:
=20
Time for Swing (in minutes): 10,305 (0.0937279 docs/sec)
Time for HTMLParser 1.1 (in minutes): 294 (3.2943877 docs/sec)
Time for HTMLParser 1.2 (in minutes): 311 (3.1665058 docs/sec)
=20
Note that this run was done on a single box with no other parallel runs.
Also, there was a variance of about 1000 files between runs that are
reflected in the speed numbers. But I provided the average in the
paragraph above, so you will not get exact results from recalculating
from those numbers. Still, everything needs to be looked at in
perspective.
=20
Notable here is that the 1.2 version seems to be a tiny bit slower on
big files. This is almost certainly due to string reallocation. As
contiguous content gets larger, which can happen in any application that
works heavily with string objects. It might be worth looking at whether
this is addressable. Overall, though, HTMParser 1.2 is clearly an
improvement over the most commonly used Java/HTML parser (ie: Swing) in
use today ;-).
-----Original Message-----
From: Somik Raha [mailto:so...@ya...]=20
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:19 PM
To: htm...@li...;
htm...@li...
Subject: Re: [Htmlparser-user] RE: [Htmlparser-developer] Final
Statistics from Trek Run
Hi Claude,
Thanks a ton for all these tests. Do you think you could write an
article on this that we could put up ?
=20
Regards
Somik
|
