[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 3/9/04 1:54 AM, "jda" <jda at his.com> wrote:

>>>  I forget, but it was larger than that (the field that has the most
>>>  data is compressed).
>>> 
>>>  It was over a year ago I did this. I can test it again if you want.
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> I'd expect
>> 
>>     13 MB + 13MB + let it be 20 MB XML = 50 MB
>> 
>> 2 seconds on all.
>> 
> 
> OK. Either it's gotten better, or I have (of course, the Mac I tried
> it on before was a beige G3, and now it's an 800 mHz G4 iMac, so that
> helps, too)!
> 
> I tried a db with 3000 records. The dump was very quick, as you said
> (2 seconds or less). The XML file was 5.7 MB. Reading was a lot
> slower: 2.5 minutes.
> 
> This isn't terrible, especially if there was some kind of visual
> feedback (I know Valentina 2.0 will let you do that so the user sees
> what is going on).
> 
> I'm not sure conversion in memory would be all that much faster. So
> maybe this will be enough. Certainly it would be fine for small
> databases (<= 1 MB). I have occasional users with > 50,000 records,
> so it would be a pain for them, but they only have to do it once. I
> guess we'll have to see when 2.0 is available to test.
> 
> So thanks...I'm glad I tested again.

Ok, 

Still not fast XML parsing I think.
Although we use EXPAT, they claim to be fastest.

-- 
Best regards,
Ruslan Zasukhin      [ I feel the need...the need for speed ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: ruslan at paradigmasoft.com
web: http://www.paradigmasoft.com

To subscribe to the Valentina mail list go to:
http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
-------------------------------------------------------------