From: Stuart Dootson (stuart.dootson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-11 15:20:23
On 09/01/2008, Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> 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
I do need to verify that they both present the same set of nodes,
attributes etc, but it's a promising showing by rapidxml...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk