Yes, that was a typo.
> -----Original Message----- > From: William M. Brack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:31 PM > To: Marc Adkins > Subject: Re: [xslt] Performance Analysis > > Marc Adkins wrote: > > We have been doing a performance comparison between a three > year old > > version of the LibXML / LibXSLT libraries and the latest version > > released by dVeillard with patches provided by wBrack. > > > > <snip> > > > * Alpha: > > Our current production templates using the older libraries. > > * Bravo: > > Updated templates that run without error with the newer libraries, > > tested against the newer libraries. > ^^^^^ > I assume this was a typo, and that you meant "older"? > > > * Charlie: > > Same updated templates tested against the newer libraries. > > > > <snip> > > > Alpha Bravo Charlie > > Avg CPU % 14.89 14.96 0.46% 15.39 3.34% > > Interrupts/s 1545.65 1552.58 0.45% > 1573.41 1.80% > > Memory 1738837 1739171 0.02% 1584031 -8.90% > > IOps/s 13.81 13.98 1.26% 32.98 138.92% > > Trans/s 46.19 46.41 0.47% 46.21 0.03% > > > > I've no idea why the higher I/O rate. In fact, I would have > expected a significant drop because of the increased caching. > I'm also surprised that the "Trans/s" hasn't improved. > Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to investigate, > since the source stylesheets and data are unavailable (not > complaining, just stating fact :-) ). > > > Marc M. Adkins > > > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ xslt mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xslt
