From: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:12:32 +0200

To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

Cc: reagle@w3c.org

Message-ID: <55216627.1022019152@pinkpanther>

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:12:32 +0200

To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org

Cc: reagle@w3c.org

Message-ID: <55216627.1022019152@pinkpanther>

Hi all, I knew that my implementation is kind of slow, but I did not HOW much ;-) I rewrote my complete c14n code and now this babe is a little bit faster.. Remark: I did not optimize the transform algorithms, but only my c14n. Well, anyhow, I again tested the performance of the official xfilter2 and on my own idea, both on three different samples (John's form, the xfilter2 sample and my arbitrary sample). Here are the results: >From what I see in these example: - both transforms depend on the complexity of the selected "shape" - xfilter2 consumes a monoton increasing processing power - my approach is a little bit faster; it does only include nodes in the output node set of the transform which have also been in the input node set. --------------------------- Signing a simple GIF image on my harddisk 300 * simple_gif_detached took 144,267 seconds --------------------------- Signing John's form 300 * pureedge_xfilter2 took 394,087 seconds 300 * pureedge_apachefilter took 384,613 seconds --------------------------- Signing the sample from the xfilter2 spec. 300 * xfilter2spec_xfilter2_1 took 50,112 seconds 300 * xfilter2spec_xfilter2_2 took 59,366 seconds 300 * xfilter2spec_xfilter2_3 took 64,853 seconds 300 * xfilter2spec_apachefilter_1 took 43,703 seconds 300 * xfilter2spec_apachefilter_2 took 53,357 seconds 300 * xfilter2spec_apachefilter_3 took 52,585 seconds --------------------------- 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_1 took 59,515 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_2 took 75,289 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_3 took 84,040 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_4 took 98,492 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_5 took 108,516 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_6 took 129,456 seconds 300 * apachesample_xfilter2_7 took 136,086 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_1 took 60,878 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_2 took 63,281 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_3 took 64,432 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_4 took 61,419 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_5 took 61,608 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_6 took 65,845 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_7 took 65,044 seconds 300 * apachesample_apachefilter_7_optimal took 62,961 seconds The ..._apachefilter_7_optimal test is a transform where I excluded a complete subtree which is a little bit faster that apachefilter_7 but produces the same node set. Hope I don't bother you all too much with my ideas. Regards, ChristianReceived on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 16:07:28 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0
+ w3c-0.29
: Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT
*