On 10/9/03 10:27 AM, "Chris Nokleberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:03:02PM +0930, Glen Stampoultzis wrote: >> At 03:25 PM 9/10/2003, you wrote: >>> Yes. Although the changes to POIFS will not have a tremendous initial >>> impact on performance since HSSF will still be buffering all of the >>> records (I have ideas for changing that, but it is a lot of work). >> >> I was suspecting this to be the case. I was hoping that the performance >> would be comparable at least and that memory usage would be the same or >> better. If this is the case we could pick your implementation and run with >> that and then work towards providing an implementation of HSSF that can >> take better advantage of the new API. > > Memory use should probably be ~50%, since only HSSF will be buffering, > instead of HSSF *and* POIFS. Also, the streams you don't care about > won't have to be read in. Performance should improve at least a little > as a result. No.. Our object counts expand memory usage *far* more than POIFS. This may end up being true in the HEAD. -Andy > > Chris > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
