| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
|---|
| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | xsltproc very slow |
| Date: | 2003-11-24 21:35:38 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311242230510.21306-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
I've just tried out how xsltproc (1.0.8) performs compared to openjade
(1.3.1). I'm not impressed. While openjade is already notoriously slow,
12 minutes for a full documentation build on my system, with xsltproc it
took 55 minutes. Can anyone try it out on his system to see whether other
versions or other configurations perform better? As it stands, I'm not
excited to give up openjade.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: xsltproc very slow |
| Date: | 2003-11-24 23:19:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20031124231936.GB68963@perrin.nxad.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> I've just tried out how xsltproc (1.0.8) performs compared to
> openjade (1.3.1). I'm not impressed. While openjade is already
> notoriously slow, 12 minutes for a full documentation build on my
> system, with xsltproc it took 55 minutes. Can anyone try it out on
> his system to see whether other versions or other configurations
> perform better? As it stands, I'm not excited to give up openjade.
Profile xsltproc(1). Dime to dollar it's some inefficient XSL.
libxslt is by and large considered the fastest XSL processor and is
very performance consciouus. I wrote the ruby bindings for
libxml/libxslt and have found Daniel very responsive to performance
related questions. $0.02. If you find some problem XSL that's slow,
let me know and I may be able to help out. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden