From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2001-11-11T03:10:07+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24838] Re: ruby and webservices

Markus Jais wrote:

....
>> 1) NQXML
>> 2) REXML
>> 3) XMLParser (expat)
....
> I think the XMLParser maybe has the advantage of being faster
> (and this might often be an issue. I am trying to do some xml programming
> at work und here performance is the main reason. I'd really like to use
> ruby or python or at least java, but unfortunately I have to stick to
> C or C++ as it seems)

Hi folks,

Well, I've done some more benchmarks, and with surprising results.  I took 
the code supplied by TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@inac.co.jp> and added it to 
REXML's comparison benchmark suite, and here's what I got:

 function                         REXML        NQXML           XMLParser
 version                          1.1a         1.1.1            0.6.1
 Parsing small document          67.6         41.6 (0.62)      107.8 (1.59)
 Creating and adding new Element 3830.8       5788.0 (1.51)    3729.2 (0.97)
 Creating a new document tree    758.8        1659.6 (2.19)    560.2 (0.74) 
 Writing document                 13.0         7.6 (0.58)       N/A 
 Hand-parsing children            1481.8       2569.4 (1.73)    24.2 (0.02) 
 XPath                             389.0        N/A              N/A 
 Parsing large document           4.6          1.6 (0.35)       3.8 (0.83) 
 Stream parsing                   6.0           2.2 (0.37)       N/A 

These numbers change as you get faster CPU's; at home I have an AMD 400Mhz. 
In general, the proportions scale, but sometimes you get a wild number when 
you move to a different CPU.  In particular, on my Intel 800Mhz machine at 
work, REXML catches up to and surpasses REXML in the "creating and adding 
new element" test.  I'm not sure why.

What does this tell me?  The native XMLParser really isn't faster overall 
than either REXML or NQXML, and in fact is much slower in some cases.  I 
therefore retract my earlier statement: if a native implementation doesn't 
improve the speed, I see no reason to bundle a native implementation with 
Ruby.  In fact, if speed isn't a factor, I'd vote for a pure Ruby 
implementation, as it would be easier to maintain.

The benchmark program is available only with the 1.2 alpha version of 
REXML, which I'm only distributing by request until XPath is tested.  
Again, 1.2 will be released when XPath is mostly compliant with the spec.

--- SER


-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----