You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cocoon.apache.org by "Graaf, Edgar de (fin)" <Ed...@ordina.nl> on 2002/05/27 10:15:02 UTC
TreeProcessor performance
Hi,
Recently I installed the TreeProcessor instead of compiling. Everyone says
it is faster then compiling the sitemap, so I didn't test it. Then I
installed Saxon and tot test Saxon I did a Jmeter test. My application
collapsed from 6 seconds average response time to 20 seconds!? So I put
xalan back, 27 seconds!? Then I put the compiled version back and I got 6
seconds.... my question to you is:
Does anybody know why this could be? Does the TreeProcessor cost more
memory? (I only have 196 MB) Are there some bugs in certain versions of the
TreeProcessor? Or is the TreeProcessor just not scaleable?
Thanks,
Edgar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
Re: TreeProcessor performance
Posted by Olivier Rossel <ol...@anyware-tech.com>.
COuld you please give us your bench with a brand new version of the
sitemap.xmap (for example, edit it, change a line, save the file,
measure the perf with a given processor, and reprocess all that for each
processor).
On a slow 128MB machine, sitemap compilation takes ages to complete.
TreeProcessor is much faster.
I did not try with Saxon.
Graaf, Edgar de (fin) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently I installed the TreeProcessor instead of compiling. Everyone says
> it is faster then compiling the sitemap, so I didn't test it. Then I
> installed Saxon and tot test Saxon I did a Jmeter test. My application
> collapsed from 6 seconds average response time to 20 seconds!? So I put
> xalan back, 27 seconds!? Then I put the compiled version back and I got 6
> seconds.... my question to you is:
>
> Does anybody know why this could be? Does the TreeProcessor cost more
> memory? (I only have 196 MB) Are there some bugs in certain versions of the
> TreeProcessor? Or is the TreeProcessor just not scaleable?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edgar
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
> FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
Re: TreeProcessor performance
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@anyware-tech.com>.
Graaf, Edgar de (fin) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Recently I installed the TreeProcessor instead of compiling. Everyone says
>it is faster then compiling the sitemap, so I didn't test it. Then I
>installed Saxon and tot test Saxon I did a Jmeter test. My application
>collapsed from 6 seconds average response time to 20 seconds!? So I put
>xalan back, 27 seconds!? Then I put the compiled version back and I got 6
>seconds.... my question to you is:
>
>Does anybody know why this could be? Does the TreeProcessor cost more
>memory? (I only have 196 MB) Are there some bugs in certain versions of the
>TreeProcessor? Or is the TreeProcessor just not scaleable?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Edgar
>
>
The TreeProcessor is way faster at *loading* a sitemap, since it doesn't
require code generation and compilation. On my 1GHz / 512 Mb / P3 /
win2k PC, load time of the (large) samples sitemap fell from 20 seconds
to less than 1 second.
Now for runtime execution, tests showed between 0 and 10% speed increase
*with a HotSpot VM* (JDK 1.3.1). If you don't use a HotSpot VM, it's
very likely that the TreeProcessor will be much slower than the compiled
one.
Are you using a HotSpot VM ? If yes, you also have to give it some
"warm-up" time before actually measuring performance.
Anyway, my tests were rather limited and I would be interested if people
had the time and tools to perform more in-depth performance comparisons
between the two engines.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies Apache Cocoon
http://www.anyware-tech.com mailto:sylvain@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check that your question has not already been answered in the
FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faqs.html>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <co...@xml.apache.org>