Hi Dan,

I have checked with both the parsers SAX and DOM and almost same result I got.

Best Regards,
Rinil

From: Huantes, Dan F (TASC) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Regarding Xercesc++ performance

Nice work.

I'm curious as to whether your performance testing is DOM based, SAX based, or 
both.

I ask because my anecdotal experience is that files exceeding 1MB experience 
large performance hits due to the inherent nature of the DOM model.  Under 
these scenarios, I have used SAX because it's several orders of magnitude 
faster (i.e. seconds vs minutes).  We used 2.8 before but never thought to 
compare the difference in performance between different versions.  You may be 
on to something.  Thanks.

Dan


From: Baxi, Rinil Rushabh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:07 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Regarding Xercesc++ performance

Hi All,

I have 2 Xerces-C++ libraries available on my platform (2.4 and 3.1). Both are 
built without threads. I am trying to compare performance of both of them. To 
compare performance I am using different sized xml files to parse using the 
samples (1kb, 65kb, 256Kb, 1Mb, 2Mb, 5Mb and 15Mb). I have put each sample in a 
script and run the same sample 1000 times to compare the parsing time.

We observed that till 1Mb xml file size performance of Xerces-C++ 3.1 is better 
after that it starts deteriorating. With 15Mb xml file 3.1 sample takes almost 
30% more time than with 2.4 same sample.

Please let me know whether this is the right method to measure performance or 
not. If no then how can we measure that. One more question is Why such 
performance degradation?

Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,
Rinil

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments or files transmitted 
with it (collectively, the "Message") are intended only for the addressee and 
may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and/or prohibited from 
disclosure by law or contract. If you are not the intended recipient: (a) 
please do not read, copy or retransmit the Message; (b) permanently delete 
and/or destroy all electronic and hard copies of the Message; (c) notify us by 
return email; and (d) you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of the Message is strictly prohibited.

Reply via email to