[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:35:48 -0500, Stephen E. Beller <sbeller@nhds.com> wrote:
> In consideration of Elliotte's reply, I went back and looked at the XML file
> Excel generated. Here's what I found ...
>
> Every one of the XML data elements had this tagging structure:
> <Row>
> <Cell><Data ss:Type="Number">1</Data></Cell>
> </Row>
>
> In contrast, the CSV had this structure: 1,
>
> That's a 50 characters to 1 difference for each data element.
>
> I doubt that all those XML tags are necessary if you're rendering the data
> in something other than a spreadsheet. But if you are planning to use a
> spreadsheet, then the 50 to 1 ratio is valid, it seems to me.
Use the number 10, now the difference is 51 to 2 or a ratio of ~26 to
1. Use the number 100 and the ratio is 52 to 3 or ~17 to 1. Six
digits? 56 to 6 or ~10 to 1. Now add multiple columns of data (as any
realistic example would do) and the ratio falls even farther.
<snip/>
>
> So, this benchmark test still points to a huge difference in file size and
> in unzipping and parsing time when you compare a large data array in CSV
> compared to XML.
Maybe, maybe not, the bench mark needs to be more realistic before you
draw any conclusions about "huge".
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
