W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > October 2006

Question about baseline textual parser performance (wrt binary ones)

From: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:57:28 -0700
Message-ID: <5f7770580610092057k35470c9ap49229eae949de619@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-exi@w3.org

Apologies if this has been asked earlier, but after reading the
published draft, I noticed that comparisons seemed to only include
parsers expected to be faster than the commonly used one. I can
understand the desire to keep number of implementations measure
limited, but I was hoping that in addition to "best of the best",
couple of most commonly used parsers (like, Xerces-J) could also be
included.

The reason for this is that having a baseline xml parser
implementations that everyone has access to would help in evaluating
relative performance benefits of state-of-the-art parsers. It would
also allow indirectly comparing performance of other parser
implementations (not included in exi measurements) with ones that are
included.

My own selfish motivation is that this would also allow me to compare
relative performance of the java xml parser I am mostly working on
(Woodstox), even  if I couldn't get access to (or have time to get
ones written in other languages) the fastest ones included in exi
experiments. For example, observing that the performance difference
between Xerces and Woodstox appears to be somewhere between 20 - 40%
would allow me to infer approximate ratios to faster parsers.

So, is there a chance that one or two of the most commonly (if not
fastest) used compliant xml parsers could also be included, for
baselining purposes?

-+ Tatu +-
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 03:57:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:42 UTC