I am also for replacing XPP with STAX. We did performance testing
between XPP and STAX for our Java Solr client and found there is only
a very small difference (XPP was about 3% faster).
Bill
On 6/30/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you all feel about moving:
XmlUpdateRequestHandler -> XppUpdateRequestHandler
StaxUpdateRequestHandler -> XmlUpdateRequestHandler
then deprecating XppUpdateRequestHandler?
+1
I think we could remove the XppUp
On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so we should test that use case (ie: containing 1 small
> documents;
For processing a single request with 1 documents, the existing XPP
update handler is faster then the new StaxUpdateHandler.
XPP: 6888 6714
STAX: 8665 8313
Have
On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I remove logging, the same test runs in:
STAX: 6783 6834
essentially equivalent to the XPP version
What about if you remove the logging for the XPP version too?
-Yonik
so we should test that use case (ie: containing 1 small
documents;
For processing a single request with 1 documents, the existing XPP
update handler is faster then the new StaxUpdateHandler.
XPP: 6888 6714
STAX: 8665 8313
I looked into it, and the difference seems to be entirely
On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you all feel about moving:
XmlUpdateRequestHandler -> XppUpdateRequestHandler
StaxUpdateRequestHandler -> XmlUpdateRequestHandler
then deprecating XppUpdateRequestHandler?
+1
I think we could remove the XppUpdateRequestHandler re
I'm kinda out of the looop on the whole Stax/Xpp/Xml update parsing stuff
... am i remembering correctly the end game goal is to reduce/eliminate
dependencies on XPP? (because ? stax is Java "standard"
included out-of-the-box with java6? (i'm guessing))
For me the biggest reason is
: How do you all feel about moving:
: XmlUpdateRequestHandler -> XppUpdateRequestHandler
: StaxUpdateRequestHandler -> XmlUpdateRequestHandler
:
: then deprecating XppUpdateRequestHandler? This will urge people to use
: the Stax implemenation sooner then later and should help iron out any
: p
I just did some performance testing to compare the stax vs xpp
implementaion. As far as I can tell there is no real difference between
them.
Using solrj, this adds 1 documents for each handler - running each
as an independent call.
STAX: 8631 8221 8525 8383 8487 = 42247
XPP: 8309 8438
