Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > If you want to help making JXTG faster you need to submit more > information. We need examples that reproduce this behaviour with the > JXTG template and the corresponding XSLT. We also need to know exactly > what version of 2.2 you used. How did you measure preformance? Profiling > info is rather helpful > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111625859100003&r=1&w=2. >
I apologize. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that a partially automated transformation produce a code that seems to be more efficient than its original. nothing more, but i would really like to give you something more in order to improve jxtg. I just made some quick & dirty comparison based on access info (the log category). I use apparently the old jxtg with macros so this is perhaps the reason. > JXTG compiles the script to a sequence of SAX events and also compiles > the expressions. So during execution nothing complicated is supposed to > happen, except for what is done internally in the expressions. So there > is really no reason that it should be any slower than saxon8. But of > course there can be small things in specific instructions or in the > execution engine that slows things down. When one have got the basic > algoritms right (which I think we have), optimization is much about > small details. Have you some benchmarks on the xpath evaluator ? We use quite a lot of xpath processing on a several ko dom (given as a param from flow). That's perhaps a good reason why saxon8 handle this quicker (expressions are indeed the same between the stylesheets). > Anyway, without more data about what happens, there is not much we can do. > > /Daniel
