cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <d...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: [Xalan2] Namespaces Problem
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:17:43 GMT
Scott, Xalan2J Team,

Thanks a ton for all your help and quick turn-arounds. 

-- dims

--- Sebastien Sahuc <ssahuc@imediation.com> wrote:
> > How's performance?  
> [snip]
> > I'm especially interested to hear if you cocoon guys can notice the
> > incremental performance now.  I fixed the last bug in that 
> > respect, and you
> > should see an interesting change in response time.
> 
> Here is my report (JDK1.2.2 win32 + Hotspot 2 , average on 1000loops) : 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                      | empty.xsp | simple.xsp | sitemap.map |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  SAX/XalanJ2BeforeOp | 80 ms         | 350 ms     | 3000 ms     |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  SAX/XalanJ2Latest   | 16 ms         | 110 ms     | 550 ms     |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Show we do see improvement, definitely, it's a great move !!!
> 
> What is even great is the incremental performance : The more we make loops,
> the faster the whole porcess is, which is exactly the strenght of the Java
> server side. 
> For the sitemap example it takes 20 loops (with a time of 1000ms) before the
> time drops to 400ms, which is damn unbelievable when compared to the
> BOMbased XSP engine/XalanJ1 which reported 12000 ms/loop !!!
> 
> > 
> > The measurements I'm taking still show Xalan2 a bit slower 
> > than XalanJ1.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with you on this point anymore :-)
> 
> > However, I'm measuring the Xerces serializers against the old Xalan
> > serializers, which I think were quite a bit faster.  Assaf's 
> > fancy layers
> > may be art, but serialization is very time critical code.  A huge
> > percentage of the overall profiles, like 40%, are being spent in the
> > serialization layer.
> 
> If this is true, then we -at cocoon2- should be careful when using the
> serailize package. In the SAX based XSP engine, we make use of it, so we
> might double check the real impact.
> 
> > 
> > Anyway, I suspect *basic* transforms at the XalanJ2 level are 
> > now faster
> > than XalanJ1.  
> 
> Indeed this is what is happening here.
> 
> > But this stuff is still highly case-by-case 
> > dependent.  Many
> > selection patterns will probably be a bit faster in XalanJ1, 
> > like "//foo",
> > but this will improve quickly over time.  I suspect we're 
> > well on our way
> > to becoming as fast or faster than other Java processor competitors.
> > 
> > I think I'm going to give up on the optimization madness for 
> > now.  There's
> > still a lot to be done, but it's time that I clear my head on 
> > this aspect
> > for a few days.  I'll do some more work on optimized itterators, etc.,
> > after I get back from ApacheCon.
> 
> Thanks for your great job, Scoot. We will definitely appreciate your
> reactivity.
> 
> Sebastien
> 


=====
Davanum Srinivas, JNI-FAQ Manager
http://www.jGuru.com/faq/JNI

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Mime
View raw message