On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:56:22PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
if you have a bit of time then, maybe you can rerun your initial tests
with that one, is that possible ?
I can try, sure. Just send me a patch that removes the current hash
Salut Daniel,
Daniel Veillard wrote:
- the second one is unfortunately not fixeable as is it comes from the
key hash definitions themselves:
-#define xmlDictComputeKey(dict, name, len) \
-(((dict)-size == MIN_DICT_SIZE) ? \
-
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:25:14AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hmm, was that in my patch? Out of the top of my head, shouldn't the last line
read
xmlDictComputeBigKey(prefix, -1, xmlDictComputeBigKey(name, len, len
or something in that line? This looks like a copypaste error to
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 04:11:13AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 08:25:14AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Another option I looked at is the 'One-at-a-Time Hash' from
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html , looking at the criterias
and the results it looks like a
Daniel Veillard wrote:
Another option I looked at is the 'One-at-a-Time Hash' from
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html , looking at the criterias
and the results it looks like a good hash too, not too expensive and
should work well.
The page says it's pretty good when inlined, which
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
if you have a bit of time then, maybe you can rerun your initial tests
with that one, is that possible ?
I can try, sure. Just send me a patch that removes the current hash
function from SVN and adds the new one, and I will find a way to compare
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:51:38AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi again (and sorry for all the noise),
Stefan Behnel wrote:
If an application benefits from a different hash function depends on the
vocabulary it uses in its XML files. A slow but well distributing hash
function performs
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Since you seems to be interested in the performances of the hash
algorithm, I tried to drop the string comparisons on lookup when
2008/4/22, Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:51:38AM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi again (and sorry for all the noise),
Stefan Behnel wrote:
If an application benefits from a different hash function depends on the
vocabulary it uses in its XML files.
Hi again (and sorry for all the noise),
Stefan Behnel wrote:
If an application benefits from a different hash function depends on the
vocabulary it uses in its XML files. A slow but well distributing hash
function performs much better for large vocabularies (or many different
vocabularies),
Hi,
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Since you seems to be interested in the performances of the hash
algorithm, I tried to drop the string comparisons on lookup when possible
I have an old patch for this which I'm enclosing, but I
Hi,
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:04PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
I would prefer to see benchmarks done with xmllint directly, to avoid
side effect of more string interning than libxml2.
Ok, I did some testing with xmllint. I noticed that things can easily get
slower
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Since you seems to be interested in the performances of the hash
algorithm, I tried to drop the string comparisons on lookup when possible
I have an old patch for this which I'm enclosing,
Hi,
long mail, bottom line being: 30% to multiple times faster parsing with a
different hash function in dict.c. Keep reading.
I did some profiling on lxml using callgrind. lxml configures the parser to
use a global per-thread dictionary, so everything it parses ends up in one
dictionary instead
Stefan Behnel wrote:
The main impact should be on the parser, and only if you use a dictionary for
parsing.
Could you give a simple example for dictionary parsing? Or does, for example,
xmlTextReader use the dictionary automatically?
Ralf
___
xml
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 03:15:18PM +0200, Ralf Junker wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
The main impact should be on the parser, and only if you use a dictionary
for parsing.
Could you give a simple example for dictionary parsing? Or does, for
example, xmlTextReader use the dictionary
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:04PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
Hi Stefan,
long mail, bottom line being: 30% to multiple times faster parsing with a
different hash function in dict.c. Keep reading.
I did some profiling on lxml using callgrind. lxml configures the parser to
use a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Since you seems to be interested in the performances of the hash
algorithm, I tried to drop the string comparisons on lookup when possible
I have an old patch for this which I'm enclosing, but I never applied it
since I had
Hi,
Stefan Behnel wrote:
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html
is quite short and readable and seems to do what I was looking for.
Some more real-world numbers. I used lxml to parse - using xmlCtxtParseFile()
- all .xml and .xsd files that locate found on my hard disc, some 58000
files,
19 matches
Mail list logo
