[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: eXelon performance
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, David Duddleston wrote:
> I have been lurking on the ozone-db list for almost a year now. Reading mail
> off and on just to keep up with what is going on and debating if I'm ready
> to give ozone a try. Anyway, I don't use ozone just yet, but might be some
> day as an XML storage solution. Currently I'm using eXelon and I thought I
> would share some performance results with you and see how it might compare
> with ozone.
> I imported all the Shakespear files into an eXelon store and then created a
> MultiDoc binder, which allows several documents to act as one. So in other
> words, I can query all the Shakespear XML docs at once.
> System. Win2K pro running on dual PII 333, with 250 megs.
> This XPath query took 9 seconds
> /MultiDoc_Container/PLAY/ACT/TITLE[../SCENE/SPEECH/SPEAKER = "CLEOPATRA"]
> This XPath query took 12 seconds
> /MultiDoc_Container/PLAY/ACT[SCENE/SPEECH/SPEAKER = "CLEOPATRA"]
> This XPath query took 13 seconds
> /MultiDoc_Container/PLAY[ACT/SCENE/SPEECH/SPEAKER = "CLEOPATRA"]
> Both of these queries using just a single doc a_and_c.xml (254kb) are in the
> ms range, so not really a factor. I'm interested in performance with large
> sets of files. I searched the ozone archives, but could not find any kind of
> performance results for Xpath queries on large XML files. Did I miss it?
Thanks for the info, David. I will check this with ozone and post results here.
Maybe this is good starting point for a server independent XPath benchmark. Or
does such a thing already exist?
Falko Braeutigam mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
softwarebuero m&b (SMB) http://www.softwarebuero.de