60x? That sounds just right.

I came across a recent blog in which the author benchmarks the performance of evaluating XPath using VTD-XML on a 20 MB and comparing it to JAXP. The result is a convincing 60X. Surprised? Don’t be. The fact is that DOM and JAXP just have too much inherent issues (performance, memory usage etc). Below is the link to that blog

http://fahdshariff.blogspot.com/2010/08/faster-xpaths-with-vtd-xml.html

Advertisements

3 comments so far

  1. Steve on

    Hi! This is probably not the right place to ask questions or submit bugs but I didn’t find a better one…

    First of all: great product! We are using VTD in a c# project and it works quite well. However, we came across these bugs:

    1.
    With the XMLModifier class: Whenever, we remove a node (remove() or removeContents()), VTD appends text to the end of the file. If we only add contents then no problem.
    This is unfortunately annoying as we will have to load the file into memory to remove the superfluous text by parsing contents.

    2.
    We had to drop the xpath functionality because it does not enumerate nodes in the order they appear in the file (other xpath implementations do this but not sure if this is part of the xpath specs). From what we saw, you enumerate by node depth.

    Keep up the good work,
    Steve

    • jimmyzhang on

      Hi, steve, do you have a test case that we can verify the bug?
      Jimmy

    • jimmyzhang on

      also enumerate the nodes in document order is possible with 2.9 but need a little more work… why is it important? what kind of xpath do you use?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: