Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

What is more efficient for parsing Xml, XPath with XmlDocuments, XSLT or Linq?

I have parsed XML using both of the following two methods...

  • Parsing the XmlDocument using the object model and XPath queries.
  • XSL/T

But I have never used...

  • The Linq Xml object model that was new to .Net 3.5

Can anyone tell me the comparative efficiency between the three alternatives?

I realise that the particular usage would be a factor, but I just want a rough idea. For example, is the Linq option massively slower than the others?

like image 477
Andy McCluggage Avatar asked Oct 08 '08 14:10

Andy McCluggage


People also ask

Is XPath efficient?

In particular, the XPathDocument class is designed to be more efficient for evaluating XPath expressions than using (the DOM-based) XmlDocument class. The reason is that XPathDocument is a read-only representation of an XML document, while a DOM implementation also covers changing the document.

For what purpose XSLT uses XPath?

XPath is a major element in the XSLT standard. XPath can be used to navigate through elements and attributes in an XML document.

Does XSLT use XPath?

XSLT uses XPath to find information in an XML document. XPath is used to navigate through elements and attributes in XML documents. In the transformation process, XSLT uses XPath to define parts of the source document that should match one or more predefined templates.

What is difference between XPath and XML?

XPath is a query language for selecting nodes from an XML. An XML parser is a program that reads your XML and produces some kind of data structure, usually a Document Object Model (DOM) that you can programmatically manipulate in your programming language (java, perl, etc.).


1 Answers

The absolute fastest way to query an XML document is the hardest: write a method that uses an XmlReader to process the input stream, and have it process nodes as it reads them. This is the way to combine parsing and querying into a single operation. (Simply using XPath doesn't do this; both XmlDocument and XPathDocument parse the document in their Load methods.) This is usually only a good idea if you're processing extremely large streams of XML data.

All three methods you've describe perform similarly. XSLT has a lot of room to be the slowest of the lot, because it lets you combine the inefficiencies of XPath with the inefficiencies of template matching. XPath and LINQ queries both do essentially the same thing, which is linear searching through enumerable lists of XML nodes. I would expect LINQ to be marginally faster in practice because XPath is interpreted at runtime while LINQ is interpreted at compile-time.

But in general, how you write your query is going to have a much greater impact on execution speed than what technology you use.

The way to write fast queries against XML documents is the same whether you're using XPath or LINQ: formulate the query so that as few nodes as possible get visited during its execution. It doesn't matter which technology you use: a query that examines every node in the document is going to run a lot slower than one that examines only a small subset of them. Your ability to do that is more dependent on the structure of the XML than anything else: a document with a navigable hierarchy of elements is generally going to be a lot faster to query than one whose elements are all children of the document element.

Edit:

While I'm pretty sure I'm right that the absolute fastest way to query an XML is the hardest, the real fastest (and hardest) way doesn't use an XmlReader; it uses a state machine that directly processes characters from a stream. Like parsing XML with regular expressions, this is ordinarily a terrible idea. But it does give you the option of exchanging features for speed. By deciding not to handle those pieces of XML that you don't need for your application (e.g. namespace resolution, expansion of character entities, etc.) you can build something that will seek through a stream of characters faster than an XmlReader would. I can think of applications where this is even not a bad idea, though there I can't think of many.

like image 157
Robert Rossney Avatar answered Nov 08 '22 22:11

Robert Rossney