http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=728546


in reply to Re^2: processing massive XML files with XML::Twig
in thread processing massive XML files with XML::Twig

actually, XML::LibXML now has a pull parser (XML::LibXML::Reader) that doesn't read the entire dom into memory. much faster than XML::Twig. i've used it successfully.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: see XML::LibXML::Reader
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 06, 2008 at 14:15 UTC
    much faster than XML::Twig
    code sample please
[reply]
[reply]
        You said much faster than XML::Twig. , so where is benchmarking code sample for that?
[reply]
Re: see XML::LibXML::Reader
by mirod (Canon) on Dec 07, 2008 at 10:50 UTC

    Interesting. I have to see if I can see this as an alternate parser for XML::Twig. Or to create a different module alltogether, that combnes the speed of libxml2 with the convenience (IMHO ;--) of XML::Twig.

    It would be great if you (or someone else!) could provide code examples for the Ways to Rome" series.

[reply]
      Your benchmarking methodology is much less accurate than it could be. You shouldn't be measuring the time it takes to fork a new process and load the modules, and should be measuring multiple runs and averaging the results- ex. timethese(-5, ...).
[reply]

        I happen to think that load time is important, and the time to fork should impact all tests similarly.BTW XML::Twig does probably very badly in this respect, so you can't say I am biased.

        As far as I know, no one has ever challenged the "SAX is lightweight and fast" before I published this benchmark. And no one since then has ever come up with any figure that would prove me wrong when I say "SAX is slow".

        Of course my benchmarks are imperfect. Of course I am sure you could do better. Then do it.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom