Lists Home |
Date Index |
i found one way to fix the performance problem is with associative
structures. these are heavily indexed tables and associative lists to
work out navigation issues. and then it's very fast - much faster than
exitsing techniques. i worked out how to do it with relational databases
and now i'm building code for xml. but normalisation is important to
make this work.
the "secret" is being able to traverse lists very quickly
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>Rick Marshall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>hierarchies fail, and this is my struggle with xml at the
>>they have to support multiple hierarchies simultaneously. and they
>>largely fail because of a) the update problem, and b) the new
>>problem. reverse bill of materials is a case in point.
>>having said that xml works really well where neither of these are an
>>issue - documents where the "semantics" don't change only the
>>and as i said before moving transactions between systems.
>>even relational systems have problems because the semantics
>>in the sql select statements. most so called post relational systems
>>(not really sure that's a legitimate term, even though it's
>>used a lot)
>>basically embed semantics back into the structure.
>>things like owl and to a lesser extent name spaces try to express the
>>semantics as a meta model. imho a far superior approach. i just don't
>>like naming relationships - prefer to acknowledge they exist
>>and what it
>>takes to define them, but not necessarily name them.
>>now to xml and the cinderella id tag. the same effect as the
>>hierarchical xml could be achieved by allowing a name/value
>>store the structure as attributes in the xml tag and they should be
>>treated as elements as well.
>>the id tag is the required unique key, while special
>>store structure. this has the advantage of flatenning the xml and
>>allowing the parsers to create structure on the fly to suit
>>which would be approximately
>>early days, but something like this would be much better for data
>>modelling. perhaps we can have post-xml? ;)
>Interesting, this is essentially the structure I was comparing to a
>structured hierarchy in the "Parallel tree traversal" thread. Turns out
>that once I fixed up all my XSLT bugs and cleaned up the code that the
>version that used the structured hierarchy runs about an order of
>magnitude faster than the version that attempts to stitch the hierarchy
>together from flat data using id/idref.
>I need a little more testing on the insert/update side, but I expect I'm
>going to proceed with a version of our code that can spit out multiple
>hierarchies cutting across our relationship lattice on demand instead of
>trying to glue this together on the XML side. More XML output
>(redundant trees), but at least in our case normalization costs too much
>in terms of performance and the extra space consumption can be handled:
>the redundant data is generated only as needed from a normalized
>database and not persisted anywhere. It chews up app server memory, but
>we're talking at most maybe 100 MB (if every model gets cached, which in
>our case will happen over time). A GB of memory is cheap enough that
>once more, throwing hardware at an XML problem trumps trying to spend
>too much time optimizing it.
>More and more, I'm seeing that XML application optimization comes down
>to explicitly exploiting the known algorithms for fast tree traversal
>and generation and not trying to re-invent normalization from within
>XSLT (or Java transforms for that matter)...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530