Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <39249D12.D48BCDAF@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:46:58 -0700
From: Mike Pogue <mpogue@apache.org>
Organization: xml.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: DOM size
References: <3.0.32.20000511085445.014a0370@pop.intergate.ca>
 <391AE040.118704E4@apache.org> <391AF513.86402F6A@selectacast.net>
 <391AFC30.8EF5DBB6@apache.org> <391B064B.AA0AEDC5@selectacast.net>
 <391B2D5B.44CCFD1C@exoffice.com> <39248F7E.F47BFCB0@selectacast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hmmmmm.  If you add a whole bunch of nodes, and the size doesn't change, that means that
the DOM tree itself isn't the source of the memory usage (unless it's the 
Document node, and I think that's unlikely).  

Do you have a program like OptimizeIt, that tells you exactly what's allocated?
It would be interesting to know which objects are actually hanging around (is
there some reason why some objects weren't gc'ed?)

This reminds me of a similar problem being discussed right now -- a so-called
"memory leak".  We don't know the cause yet, but your help would be appreciated
in tracking this down!

Mike

Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> 
> I finally had some time to run more tests.  I added more elements, child nodes, text
> nodes, etc.  The size didn't change much over a base Document.  So the Document is eating
> up 100k
> 
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org