Re^2: see XML::LibXML::Reader

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, ...).

Comment on Re^2: see XML::LibXML::Reader

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: see XML::LibXML::Reader by mirod (Canon) on Dec 08, 2008 at 10:01 UTC
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: see XML::LibXML::Reader
by mirod (Canon) on Dec 08, 2008 at 10:01 UTC

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]