Subject: Re: Experiences of relative performance of different xsl engines w/docbook xsl?
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:53:11 +0200, Jirka Kosek <jirka@xxxx> wrote: > Antti Karanta wrote: > >> Has anyone done any performance comparisons of how different xsl >> engines perform when using docbook xsl (saxon, xalan, xsltproc etc)? Are >> there significant differences? > > From those three, on more complex transformation Saxon is usually the > fastest. I think that we (as stylesheet developers) should try make > stylesheets working also under Saxon 9 in XSLT 1.0 backward compatibile > mode. This shouldn't be big efort, I think that non-chunking stylesheets > are working this way already. Saxon 9 is more performant then Saxon > 6.5.5 and more and more optimiztations are added into it thanks to its > excellent developer. I tried it out and it is amazingly lot faster - a sample I'm running went down from 250s (on saxon 655) to 30s (on saxon 9103)! There seem to be some problems with our custom extensions, I'll have to figure those out. The docbook-xsl saxon extensions won't work, though, as they are for saxon 655. Are there any plans to port the extensions to saxon9? Currently I was using use.extensions=1 tablecolumns.extension=1 fop1.extensions=1 for fo and use.extensions=1 tablecolumns.extension=1 graphicsize.extension=1 for html. FOP outputs a lot of "WARNING: table-layout="fixed" and column-width unspecified => falling back to proportional-column-width(1)" At a quick glance the tables I looked at seemed all right, though. ::Antti::