Hi, Rinil. What is your goal? If you are considering choosing Xerces 2.4 vs 3.1, here are some other things to think about. (a) Xerces 3.1 has better support for later XML standards (b) Xerces 3.1 has bug fixes over 2.4 (c) Xerces 3.1 has support for 64-bit architectures (d) Any future developments and improvements will likely only be made to the Xerces 3.1 line.
If performance is critical, you may want to consider icXML. This is a highly accelerated version of Xerces 3.1.1 that we are building based on the systematic incorporation of parallel bit stream technology in the underlying engine. icXML substantially speeds up both SAX-based and DOM-based parsing. We will be presenting our work with icXML at Balisage 2013 in Montreal this August. Rob Cameron CTO, International Characters, Inc. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Baxi, Rinil Rushabh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
