SAXON did improve the performance more than 10 times
comparing to
XALAN. I wonder why people are still using XALAN. Are there
any specific
areas where XALAN performs better than SAXON??
I'll leave others to answer those questions...
I have one more question. Is there any difference in performance using
'Saxon-SA' comparing to 'Saxon-B'?
The answer is that most of the time it makes no difference, but some of the
time it makes a big difference, because there are one or two optimizations
in Saxon-SA that are not present in Saxon-B: these are generally related to
performing joins.
In fairness, some people have reported that the start-up time for Saxon-B
can be a little faster: this is because there is less code, so the JVM loads
it more quickly.
Anyhow I will try SAXON-SA in coming
weeks. Good work Mike, your parser is a super fast engine.
Thanks.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--