Re: [Qexo-general] qexo speed

[Per Bothner]

fl wrote:

> A simple 500K xml file is processed at the same speed  by both tools, 
> compiled qexo being a bit faster.

That's reassuring, though we can probably do better.

> Do you have any numbers or predictions about qexo versus compiled qexo 
> versus xslt versus stx or others ?

Even "non-compiled" Qexo ends up being compiled.  However,
pre-compilation says a little bit of compilation time,
plus a few more optimizations may be done for pre-compilation.

The Qexo parser is quite lean, though I have a few improvements
in mind.  The DOM that Qexo uses is also very compact and fast.
(It is not compatible with the standard W3C DOM.)

> Note: according to some, joost is somehow as fast as SAXON...

I haven't used Saxon - I mainly use xsltproc (written in C) when
I need an xslt processor.

Note that Qexo does include an implementation of a small subset
of xslt; it would be interesting to improve enough to do some
useful tasks - and run some benchmarks.

Generally, I seldom take the time to run benchmarks, or do
performance-tuning, so it's appreciate to hear about your
experience.  Maybe later this Summer I'll do a little more
performance work, but there is so much of XQuery left to
implement that feature-completion usually comes first.
--
        --Per Bothner
address@hidden   http://per.bothner.com/