11 Jan
2008
11 Jan
'08
8:20 p.m.
On 09/01/2008, Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> wrote:
It would be great to see some real-life feature-set, performance and usability comparisons of this approach and a more traditional parser. (Actually there are some numbers in the rapidxml manual linked above, but they don't include libxml2).
Regards, Phil.
Phil - I did a quick perf test of libxml2 vs rapidxml 1.1 today. I used a 12MB XML file, which I pre-loaded before doing an in-memory parse with both libraries. rapidxml was repeatably 20x faster than libxml2. Scarily quick, in fact - it parsed my 12MB file in about 100ms... I do need to verify that they both present the same set of nodes, attributes etc, but it's a promising showing by rapidxml... Stuart Dootson