--- Holger_Fl�rke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there, > > in a german computer magazin (Heiko W. Rupp, > "Geschwindigkeitsrausch - > Leistungsfaehigkeit von XSLT-Prozessoren", iX 7/03) > was an article about XSLT > benchmarking. The author has referenced two > benchmarks: XSLTMark and XSLTBench. I had > a *short* look at Sarvegas XSLTBench > (www.sarvega.com) and found XalanC and XalanJ > are worse than the average and are beaten by eg > saxon and msxml. There are only one > test, where XalanC is faster than saxon. > > Anybody had a closer look at theese benchmarks?
I had a VERY close look at the benchmarks :-) and I find Sarvega's XSLTBench much closer to real life reality than XSLTMark; for more info go to http://www.ambrosoft.com/benchmarks.htm BTW, Sarvega's results for XSLTC are wrong: it finishes the race as one of the slowest processors because stylesheets are recompiled in each iteration; I have spoken to them about it. > Especially: Why should XalanC be > slower than most of the Java processors? Why not? Java these days is not any more the synonym of "slow." Algorithmic details make all the difference C/C++ by themselves are no guarantee of speed. > Are there > any other "accepted" benchmarks? Not to my knowledge. > HolgeR --Jacek __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
