You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by "Savino, Matt C" <Ma...@questdiagnostics.com> on 2002/02/11 22:32:23 UTC
Surprising XEP vs. FOP benchmarking results
160k FO file -> 3 page PDF document:
FOP - 1.9 sec.
XEP - 51 sec.
Wow. I've attached the FO file. Has anyone else seen this kind of
perfromance gap? Or am I doing something wrong?
FYI - I'm using the standard out of the box batch file to run it. In the FO,
I had to change master-name to master-reference in the page-sequence. Also
XEP doesn't like blank table-cells, I had to fill them with empty block
elements But those were the only two things I had to change. I'm going to
email RenderX and see if they have any response. If it's something in my FO
that's still a little scary. I've never seen FOP slow down like that based
on something in the FO.
Just thought you developers might be interested in this. I'm on the fop-user
list finally, and I'll be bugging them for all my user-related inquiries in
the future.
I do like XEP's output. Easy to debug FO problems. By the way, most of the
time was taken up outputting the individual the pages on the line that
starts "(sequence one (flow...", if that means anythig to you developers.
C:\xep>run ReportOutput.fo
(document
[input ReportOutput.fo]
[output ReportOutput.pdf]
(S (parse [system-id file:/C:/xep/ReportOutput.fo]))
(I (masters )(sequences (sequence [master-reference one](static-content
[flow-name xsl-region-before])(static-content [flow-name
xsl-region-after])(flow [flow-n
ame xsl-region-body]))))
(F (BkMaker
(sequence one (flow [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3])
(static-content [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3])
)))
(T (SAX [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3]))
)
----
done
Keep up the good work!
Matt Savino
<<ReportOutput.zip>>
Re: Surprising XEP vs. FOP benchmarking results
Posted by Patrick Andries <pa...@videotron.ca>.
Savino, Matt C wrote:
>160k FO file -> 3 page PDF document:
>
>FOP - 1.9 sec.
>XEP - 51 sec.
>
>Wow. I've attached the FO file. Has anyone else seen this kind of
>perfromance gap? Or am I doing something wrong?
>
I have the same experience. I think we should write to RenderX and ask
them what we have done wrong.
>I do like XEP's output. Easy to debug FO problems.
>
Yes. It also allowed me to do what I wanted : keep-with-next and totals
right at the bottom of the last page. Sample attached.
I got tired of limititations in FOP but then XEP is too slow, so right
now I somewhat advocate patience.
Patrick Andries
RE: Surprising XEP vs. FOP benchmarking results
Posted by Weiqi Gao <we...@networkusa.net>.
When we compared FOP and XEP in June last year, both are using roughly
the same amount of memory and took the same amount of time (roughly).
We had thought, "Here's a commercial product, maybe it's faster and use
less memory." We were wrong. XEP does generate nicer outputs and
supports more of the elements in the XSL recommendation.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao@networkusa.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Savino, Matt C [mailto:Matt.C.Savino@questdiagnostics.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:32 PM
To: 'fop-dev@xml.apache.org'
Subject: Surprising XEP vs. FOP benchmarking results
160k FO file -> 3 page PDF document:
FOP - 1.9 sec.
XEP - 51 sec.
Wow. I've attached the FO file. Has anyone else seen this kind of
perfromance gap? Or am I doing something wrong?
FYI - I'm using the standard out of the box batch file to run it. In the
FO, I had to change master-name to master-reference in the
page-sequence. Also XEP doesn't like blank table-cells, I had to fill
them with empty block elements But those were the only two things I had
to change. I'm going to email RenderX and see if they have any response.
If it's something in my FO that's still a little scary. I've never seen
FOP slow down like that based on something in the FO.
Just thought you developers might be interested in this. I'm on the
fop-user list finally, and I'll be bugging them for all my user-related
inquiries in the future.
I do like XEP's output. Easy to debug FO problems. By the way, most of
the time was taken up outputting the individual the pages on the line
that starts "(sequence one (flow...", if that means anythig to you
developers.
C:\xep>run ReportOutput.fo
(document
[input ReportOutput.fo]
[output ReportOutput.pdf]
(S (parse [system-id file:/C:/xep/ReportOutput.fo]))
(I (masters )(sequences (sequence [master-reference one](static-content
[flow-name xsl-region-before])(static-content [flow-name
xsl-region-after])(flow [flow-n ame xsl-region-body])))) (F (BkMaker
(sequence one (flow [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3])
(static-content [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3])
)))
(T (SAX [page-number 1][page-number 2][page-number 3]))
)
----
done
Keep up the good work!
Matt Savino
<<ReportOutput.zip>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org