[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-970?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16104065#comment-16104065
]
Adam Leggett commented on XERCESJ-970:
--------------------------------------
I realize this is a very old ticket - and seemingly fixed in the later JRE
editions of Xerces - but I have seen this manifest recently when we added a
library to our project which has a dependency on xercesImpl-2.10.0.jar. It
took me a while to track down that the old library was the culprit. We were
seeing processing times of over 2 minutes with 12MB base64 encoded PNG files,
which dropped to under 2 seconds when the old library was removed. Perhaps
this ticket is obsolete, but given the JRE edition is fixed - I'm curious as to
whether this ever fixed publically? - the fix version here is 'None' and it's
priority was deemed 'minor'.
To help others out, I'm going to mention a couple of keywords SAXBuilder,
org.jdom.Document and build - as it took a while to find this old thread.
> Large comments are extremely slow to parse
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: XERCESJ-970
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-970
> Project: Xerces2-J
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: XNI
> Affects Versions: 2.2.0, 2.2.1, 2.3.0, 2.4.0, 2.5.0, 2.6.0, 2.6.1, 2.6.2
> Environment: Windows XP running Java 1.4.2
> Reporter: Sean Griffin
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: comments.txt
>
>
> Very large comments drastically increase the parsing time for both SAX and
> DOM implementations. Running the sax.Counter and dom.Counter samples with a
> 410KB file where the entire thing is uncommented results in parse times in
> the 100ms to 300ms range. However, if I comment out 95% of the file and run
> the same samples the parse times jump to between 40 and 50 seconds. I ran
> the same samples using the Aelfred parser shipped with Saxon 7.9 and, while
> the file with the large comment was slower than without the comment, it
> jumped by only 100ms or so.
> I briefly compared the code between the two parsers, and they don't look
> significantly different when it comes to handling comments. The only main
> difference I noticed was around low/high byte character checks. I suspect it
> is an inefficiency in the XMLStringBuffer class, but I'm not seeing anything.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
