« Return to Thread: Performance of Woodstox StAX vs Java SAX

RE: Performance of Woodstox StAX vs Java SAX

by Michael Kay :: Rate this Message:

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Two reasons. Firstly, Woodstox is fast, no question about it. Secondly, I think the API is slightly lower-level. In my experience a pull parser is doing a little bit less work and unless you are very careful, the application has to do a little more. It's very easy to lose all the performance gains by the time you've written your application code.

Michael Kay

http://www.saxonica.com/

From: harbhanu [mailto:harbhanu@...]
Sent: 16 August 2007 09:50
To: user@...
Subject: [woodstox-user] Performance of Woodstox StAX vs Java SAX

Hi,

I am a newbie to this group…. Before I start actively using this parser, I have a query regarding its performance..

As per the parsing benchmarks reported at ….

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2007/05/09/xml-parser-benchmarks-part-1.html?page=1

The performance of Woodstox StAX is always better than even the Java SAX Implementation.

Any particular reason for the results to be like this?

Did anyone of you do similar kind of performance benchmarking of C/Java based parser w.r.t to Woodstox.

Thanks!!

Regards,

Harbhanu

« Return to Thread: Performance of Woodstox StAX vs Java SAX