This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Memory-saving Prescription for key()? [prompted by - RE: keys: repeated nodes from same key value]
- To: <xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: Memory-saving Prescription for key()? [prompted by - RE: keys: repeated nodes from same key value]
- From: John Robert Gardner <John dot Robert dot Gardner at East dot Sun dot COM>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:48:32 -0400
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
As long as we're on about keys . . . .
I recall several comments, including in the venerable tome by Michael, that
key's can be more efficient. My reason for asking is that I have a repeated
set of information I ask for -- either
match="//foo[*[contains(name(), 'bar')
and contains(., 'my_string')]]">
-or-
match="//foobar[*[contains(name(), 'barfoo')
and contains(., 'my_string')]]">
In other words, the element type name changes a lot, and the element type name string for
contains(name(), 'whatever') changes between only one or two values, and 'my_string'
always stays the same.
I've got only 5.6 megs of data, and the element type names are HUGE (it's XMI stuff
from the MOF for some class diagrams) . . . my DOM tree is bloating to 150 megs,
and I'm looking to trim down my memory footprint . . . is this a proper diagnosis
for key()? I could make a key for the contains(name(), 'barfoo'), contains(name(),
'bar'), and contains(., 'my_string'), if my guess is right?
----------------------------------
John Robert Gardner, Ph.D.
Enterprise Management Architecture
Sun Microsystems
Burlington, MA 01803
<remote />
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list