This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: switching from xalan (J) to saxon
- To: "'xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: switching from xalan (J) to saxon
- From: "Messineo, Chris" <CMessineo at caiso dot com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:40:55 -0800
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
I was running both from a java application, and found Saxon to be much
faster. I am transforming xml pages that are at times 5 mb.
Here is why I switched:
Before:
Query : less than a second
Marshalling of Query to XML : 21 seconds
XSLT Transform : 99 seconds.
Total time : ~ 120 seconds
After:
Query : less than second.
Marshalling of Query to XML : 21 seconds.
XSLT Transform : 3 seconds.
Total time : ~25 seconds
Now, I don't know why the transform performance was so much different, it
may have to do with my XSLT, but Saxon seems to be able to transform it
faster.
Here is the XSL example of my transform, nothing fancy.
<xsl:template match="/">
<ORGANIZATION>CAISO
<REPORT_ITEM>
<HEADER>
<REPORT>MKTGOALS_PROCRES</REPORT>
<SYSTEM>OASIS</SYSTEM>
<TZ>PPT</TZ>
<MKT_TYPE><xsl:value-of select="//ROW/@MKT_TYPE"/></MKT_TYPE>
<SCHED_CLASS></SCHED_CLASS>
<UOM>MW</UOM>
<INTERVAL>ENDING</INTERVAL>
<SEC_PER_INTERVAL>3600</SEC_PER_INTERVAL>
</HEADER>
<xsl:apply-templates/>
</REPORT_ITEM>
</ORGANIZATION>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="//ROW">
<DATA>
<TYPE><xsl:value-of select="@LABEL"/></TYPE>
<RESOURCE/>
<DATE><xsl:value-of select="substring(@LOADDATE, 1, 8)"/></DATE>
<INTERVAL_NUM>1</INTERVAL_NUM>
<NULL_FLAG><xsl:value-of select="@NULL_FLAG_HE01"/></NULL_FLAG>
<VALUE><xsl:value-of select="@HE01"/></VALUE>
</DATA>
<DATA>
<TYPE><xsl:value-of select="@LABEL"/></TYPE>
<RESOURCE/>
<DATE><xsl:value-of select="substring(@LOADDATE, 1, 8)"/></DATE>
<INTERVAL_NUM>2</INTERVAL_NUM>
<NULL_FLAG><xsl:value-of select="@NULL_FLAG_HE02"/></NULL_FLAG>
<VALUE><xsl:value-of select="@HE02"/></VALUE>
</DATA>
....
-----Original Message-----
From: Nanto, Dan [mailto:dnanto@solant.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:22 PM
To: 'xsl-list@mulberrytech.com'
Subject: RE: switching from xalan (J) to saxon
We have been evaluating both Saxon and Xalan, and have not seen much of a
performance difference. We are currently planning on using xalan. Did you
see a large performance difference between the two? Were you using this at
run time of from the command line? Any input would be greatly appreciated!
-Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Messineo, Chris [mailto:CMessineo@caiso.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:22 AM
To: 'xsl-list@mulberrytech.com'
Subject: RE: switching from xalan (J) to saxon
I made the change from Xalan to Saxon, and did not have to change any of my
xslt pages.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herschke [mailto:robert@herschke.de]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:21 AM
To: xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
Subject: switching from xalan (J) to saxon
Hello everybody,
For performance reasons we will switch our renderer from xalan to saxon
soon.
Perhaps somebody has done this too.
My questions:
- are there some tables or lists of xsl-constructs that doesn't match in
this two processors ?
- are there known issues, like "Do not use this in saxon, as you do it in
xalan"?
- does anybody know something about conversions between XSL-files written
for Xalan to XSL-Files converted for Saxon?
--- or are there 100% compatibility between the constructs in XSL-files?
Thanks for your help in advance!
Robert
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list