the only way to improve
this - to make it O(C+R) rather than O(C*R) - is to hand-code a
sort-merge join.
Since rows and categories are already sorted, this is
probably the best thing to do.
It occurred to me after writing that you don't need to use recursion for
this: you can do a sort on the merged node-sets and then use grouping to
find the rows in each category. In 2.0, given
<category name="A" start="10"/>
<category name="B" start="100"/>
<category name="C" start="1000"/>
<category name="D" start="10000"/>
<category name="E" start="100000"/>
<row value="842"/>
<row value="9725"/>
etc
you can do
<xsl:variable name="merged-and-sorted">
<xsl:perform-sort select="category|row">
<xsl:sort select="self::category/@start | self::row/@value"/>
</
</
<xsl:for-each-group select="$merged-and-sorted"
group-starting-with="category">
<xsl:for-each select="current-group()[self::row]">
<xsl:copy>
<xsl:attribute name="category" select="current-group()[1]/@name"/>
<xsl:copy-of select="@*|node()"/>
</xsl:copy>
</
</
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>
--~--