Interesting Monday.

James Robertson jamesr at
Wed Feb 3 00:59:49 GMT 1999

At 19:11 2/02/1999 , Matthew Sergeant (EML) wrote:

  | > I would personally recommend a third option:
  | > 
  | > 3) Store in RDBMS now, process into XML, process this into HTML now.
  | >    Process the XML into whatever you want in the future.
  | > 
  | > 
  | 	Nonononono. :)
  | 	This generates probably 5% more overhead than I have already (the
  | RDBMS). XML doesn't parse quickly (well, OK, it parses quickly, but not
  | compared to reading data from an RDBMS). When you are processing tens
of XML
  | files per second this becomes a huge problem.

Well, I guess you have to balance elegance & expandability vs raw
performance. Not an uncommon trade-off ...

But, that being said ... 

Creating XML from an RDBMS is very quick, particularly when you
do it using straightforward non-XML code.

True, XML->HTML is not as quick as would be liked, but it
again depends on the nature of the work. If your HTML needs 
a lot of complex cross-linking, tables of contents, navigation
bars, etc, then doing this straight from the RDBMS can be
a real bitch.

Also, the speed of processing XML will depend on the tool.
Have you considered using something like Omnimark, instead
of DOM, etc?

Just some more food for thought,


James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
jamesr at

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list