Re: Is it wiser to move on from XML::Simple to XML::Compile

XML::Compile does not belong in this list: it interprets the output of XML::LibXML, where the other modules are mainly only parsers.

Have a look at XML::LibXML::Simple, which is XML::Simple based on XML::LibXML. How does that compare? And XML::Twig?

It seems your benchmark hits some other resource limit for XML::Fast/XML::LibXML. Probably you need a larger XML source in memory to compare the three fasters parsers.

Comment on Re: Is it wiser to move on from XML::Simple to XML::Compile

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Is it wiser to move on from XML::Simple to XML::Compile by mohan2monks (Beadle) on Jan 27, 2014 at 09:48 UTC
Thanks for reply. I agree XML::Compile does not belong in this comparison. This comparison should not be considered as comparisons of performance of different parsers. I was just trying to compare these for my case and really think XML::Compile a great code. It supports all schema validations etc and fits well for my case too. I was looking for a possible plug in to XML::Simple with better performance. I had checked XML::LibXML::Simple too but not of much difference as both take much time in converting to perl hash than actual parsing. Here is result for two `s/iter xmllibxmlsimple xmlsimple xmllibxmlsimple 22.8 -- -3% xmlsimple 22.2 3% --` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Is it wiser to move on from XML::Simple to XML::Compile by markov (Scribe) on Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 UTC
XML::Fast is also creating HASHes. The difference might be that it construct those in XS, where ::Simple need to cross the expensive XS <-> Perl border for each node.	[reply]