Re: [Vtd-xml-users] Performance in comparison to libxml2

[Tatu S. <cow...@ya...>]

--- Jimmy Zhang <cra...@co...> wrote:

> The performnace test doesn't look right to me...
...
> I parsed a 170MB today on windows (1.7 ghz pentium
> M)
> running XML parsing  it took about 3 seconds to
> parse that

Hi Jimmy! Besides comparing libxml2 and vtd-xml/c, it
would be quite interesting to see how vtd-xml c and
java implementations differ regarding performance. I
know how to measure Java version, but since it's been
a while I did anything in c/c++, I haven't had time to
figure out if performance differs significantly
(probably not, but who knows?)

So... would it be possible for you to maybe run some
side-by-side comparisons between Java and C
implementations of vtd-xml? These would be quite
enlightening. Also, for c version, it'd be good to do
similar warmup as is done for Java version, to try to
minimize startup costs (which are much less of a
concern for native code... but there's still some
overhead for the first run).

I suspect original poster should also try running the
same/similar parsing multiple times per test -- just
running executable once may give skewed results (maybe
there are lib deps to load or such). Especially when
runtime is very short, couple of seconds.

-+ Tatu +-





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index