[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12468047
]
Erik Hatcher commented on SOLR-122:
-----------------------------------
Hold that thought, folks. First of all, we do very minimal with XML all of
which could even be done with simply using strings instead of an XML API.
Also, a refactoring of the request/response code is forthcoming which will
make things a lot cleaner. I think its a great idea for us to optimize our XML
handling, don't get me wrong, and I've come to really dislike REXML (primarily
due to its performance).
A question to Coda - did you measure performance before/after between REXML and
libxml2 within solrb?
> Add optional support for Ruby-libxml2 (vs. REXML)
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-122
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-122
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: clients - ruby - flare
> Reporter: Coda Hale
> Attachments: libxml.rb
>
>
> This file adds drop-in support for the ruby-libxml2, which is a wrapper for
> the libxml2 library, which is an order of magnitude or so faster than REXML.
> This depends on my SOLR-121 patch for multi-document adds, since the behavior
> of Solr::Request::AddDocument#to_s is different.
> Requiring this makes some tests fail, but for trivial reasons: some tests are
> directly tied to REXML, others fail due to interelement whitespace added by
> libxml2 (which you can't disable via the Ruby interface). Functionally, it's
> identical, and passes all functional tests.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
