Hi Preston, Thanks for the update. The table is a little hard to digest. Could you try to format it such that it works well in plain text?
I think that it's fine to work on compressed data and I think that Saxon will decompress it before processing. But if we have both options (compressed and uncompressed) we should either use one consistently for all measurements or (even better) provide numbers for both version to see what impact compression has on both engines. Does this make sense? Cheers, Till On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Eldon Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > The benchmark queries have all been run through saxon my local machine to > get base numbers. I used two data sizes: ~50mb and ~500mb. For VXQuery I > ran the same queries on the same data set with two versions: uncompressed > and gz compressed XML documents. The compressed version has the same number > of files, but each file is compressed. > > QueryData SizeSaxonVXQuery xmlVXQuery xml.gzq00500m36.094s1m38.698s1m43.571s > q01500m36.094s0m56.064s1m4.428s > QueryData SizeSaxonVXQuery xmlVXQuery xml.gzq005002m11.937s15m35.637 > 15m14.088sq015002m7.096s8m3.735s8m52.476s > Question: > We talked about testing saxon on the larger data set that was 3 to 5 times > memory. Currently the larger data set is store in the compressed format. > Shall I work on creating an uncompressed version for the testing Saxon? > > Other Information: > q00 and q01 are both filter based queries. The rest of the queries are > showing errors. I will dig into each of those today and send out what I > find. In addition I will start the larger scale test for q00 and q01 for > reference. > > Preston
