- From: Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:43:53 -0700
- To: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
- CC: reagle@w3.org, John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Christian, Will you the signed documents for apachesample_xfilter2_* tests, please? I am interesting in doing XML Sec library performance testsing but I am not sure I want to check out and install Java sources to create these examples. Thanks, Aleksey. >>--On Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2002 23:50 +0200 Christian Geuer-Pollmann >><geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de> wrote: >> >>>When you look at the results below, you see that each step in the >>>xfilter2spec_xfilter2_(1/2/3) adds more processing time, while this is >>>not the case for 'my' transform: I can't tell why they are as they are. >>> >>I constructed an obfuscated example in which I select some subtrees for >>inclusion/exclusion. To get the final result, I must perform 7 xfilter2 >>transforms. Each transform adds more overhead. To test how much each >>transform requires, I ran the test suite 10 times, while the first test >>only did the 1st transform, the second test included the 1st and the 2nd >>transform while the 7th test included all seven steps. The results are >>shown below >> >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_1 took 5,097 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_2 took 5,879 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_3 took 6,790 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_4 took 7,290 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_5 took 8,442 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_6 took 9,503 seconds >>10 * apachesample_xfilter2_7 took 10,475 seconds >> >>You can see that the required time is strictly monotonic increasing for >>each added transform step. To check that against my own algorithm, I write >>7 transforms which achieve the same results as the corresponding xfilter2 >>ones: >> >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_1 took 5,207 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_2 took 5,638 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_3 took 5,408 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_4 took 5,478 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_5 took 5,528 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_6 took 5,508 seconds >>10 * apachesample_apachefilter_7 took 5,358 seconds >> >>You can see that the time is -- well, not constant, but does not show this >>heavy dependency to take longer for complexer selections. >> >>BTW, if you wanna check this yourself, the implementation of the transform >>[1] is in the Apache CVS, the test suite also [2]. >> >>Kind regards, >>Christian >> >> >>[1] >><http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-security/src/org/apache/xml/security >>/transforms/implementations/TransformXPathFilterCHGP.java?rev=1.2&content-t >>ype=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup> >> >>[2] >><http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-security/src_samples/org/apache/xml/ >>security/samples/TransformPerformanceTester.java?rev=1.3&content-type=text/ >>vnd.viewcvs-markup> >> > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended >for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or >there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The >unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is >strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for >direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration >of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any >virus being passed on. > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for Content >Security threats, including computer viruses. >http://www.baltimore.com >
Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 17:45:56 UTC