From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2001-11-12T10:32:37+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24903] Re: ruby and webservices

Michael Neumann wrote:

> Did you use the SimpleTreeParser of XMLParser ? It's *very* slow for
> really large documents (1 MB, many tags). Very slow means a factor of
> 1000+ !
> But my own benchmarks showed me that the Stream Parser of NQXML is
> usually 2 times slower than XMLParser's Stream Parser, which is quite
> good for a pure Ruby solution.

According to Takahashi's benchmarks, NQXML's stream parser is 50 times 
slower than XMLParser.  My benchmark program comes out with about the same 
results (1.6 parses per second for NQXML, vs. 53 pps for XMLParser).  All 
of NQXML's parsers are slower than XMLParser, but for all other functions, 
NQXML is faster than XMLParser.

This is the important point, for me.  If there isn't a compelling speed 
reason to use the native version, I say that there are a lot of reasons to 
use a pure Ruby implementation.

IMHO, the only choice at this point is between REXML and NQXML.

--- 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!  ==-----