Randomthots wrote:
That's the part where you turn into an ass. If you call me silly, I will
call you an ass...
Calling you silly is mild, calling me an ass is rude. That's okay
though, I don't mind :)
But you didn't explain anything at all.
You didn't explain anything at all, I explained some. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to teach you programming. I provided a
computation which was sufficient to prove that the size of the XML tag
coud not be the bottleneck. I don't know what the bottleneck is.
But *why* is XML slow to parse?
Instead of slow, let's say "slower than a CSV file", since that's the
"test case" you provided. XML has a more complex structure than a CSV
file (e.g. tree structure, transversaility). OpenDocument in particular
has more information than a CSV file. XML is more generic (I encourage
you to learn XML and XSLT). The generality of XML, and its maleability
have a performance price.
I suspect that, if nothing else, the sheer size of XML files has an
impact with regards to memory usage.
But you present no evidence to support your claim.
My evidence was all the disc thrashing I observed while FC3 choked on
the problem. BTW, Windows thrashed the disc as well, but at least it
didn't become completely useless in the meantime.
Which is hardly an idication that the size of the tag is the culpit. You
have identified that there is a problem. You have provided zero evidence
to support your claim that the culpit is the size of the tag.
You produced a calculation based on assumptions that may or may not hold
true or even be relevant. I never claimed that the speed problem was
related to the transfer of the file from the disc.
I certainly hope you weren't thinking of memory. Memory is magnitudes
faster than the disk.
Fact is, I don't know why parsing that file is so slow, but I don't get
the impression that you do either.
I don't know why that file loads slow. But I'll bet you anything that
making the XML tags smaller will not help.
At least, your "explanation" didn't clear the matter up for me.
It really should show that were blaming the speed problem on the wrong
thing. It should make it fairly clear that the size of the XML tag is
probably not the bottleneck.
You insulted my intelligence and got my back up for absolutely no reason.
Same to you.
:-) I'm neither insulted nor put aback. I don't think you insulted my
intelligence. I think you just have a hard time accepting that picking
on the size of the XML tag really was a very silly thing to do.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
\/_/ I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
