[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
But factoring out the innefficiencies of encoding/decoding in the study,
we're still left with the notion that text-based vs. binary transmission
showed no difference.
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david.lyon@computergrid.net
> [mailto:david.lyon@computergrid.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:55 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph
> Cc: Stephen E. Beller; Peter Hunsberger; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Data streams
>
>
> Yes, soap is quite inneffecient and that's why one reason why
> it is not widely used.
>
> Quoting Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>:
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen E. Beller [mailto:sbeller@nhds.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:17 PM
> > > To: 'Peter Hunsberger'
> > > Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Data streams
> > >
> > > As I said initially, larger data elements do change the
> ratios. To
> > > go to the opposite extreme, large blocks of text can actually be
> > > handled MORE efficiently with XML than CSV.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the larger the attributes and other
> tag "labels,"
> > > the greater the ratio, and visa versa.
> > >
> > > So, all I'm saying is that there are times when XML make
> more sense
> > > than CSV, and certain situations make CSV superior. No
> one solution
> > > is right for all circumstances.
> > >
> > > By choosing the method that fits most sensibly with the data will
> > > help alleviate some of the XML backlash. A good seems to be that,
> > > everything else being equal, (a) the longer the tags or
> the shorter
> > > the data elements, the less sense it makes to transport
> the data via
> > > XML and (b) the shorter the tags or the longer the data elements,
> > > the more sense it makes to transport the data via XML. Anyone
> > > disagree?
> >
> > On the notion of transporting data via XML: I know that
> SOAP has not
> > yet been mentioned in this thread, and the point I am about
> to make is
> > somewhat tangential, but I thought some might be interested
> to see the
> > results of a study[1] done by some folks in Australia (one at U of
> > Tech,
> > Sydney) that compared performance of real-time trading
> systems using a
> > text-based wire representation (FIX) and SOAP. From the intro:
> >
> > "in realistic business application scenarios, SOAP's poor
> performance
> > cannot be adequately explained simply by the disadvantages of
> > text-based over binary wire formats. This also suggests that
> > improvements in the efficiency of SOAP encoders and decoders may
> > enable its use in high performance business applications."
> >
> > Interesting conclusion...
> >
> > [1]
> http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/alternate/P872/p872-kohlhoff.html
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:24 PM
> > > To: Stephen E. Beller
> > > Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Data streams
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> > >
> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
|
