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] |
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] |