# Dom4J performance versus Xerces / Xalan

Martin Böhm, Jean-Jacques Dubray

Eigner Precision Lifecycle Management

www.eigner.com

## Introduction

We have created a simple test bed to evaluate the performance of DOM4J versus Xerces/Xalan. These results are intended to give a rough idea rather than exhaustive test suite. In particular we focus our study on XML document which look like database result set. It is pretty clear that performance results may vary greatly based on the topology of your XML.

The test was designed with two topologies in mind:

a) to have elements only and each element name is unique in the whole document.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<ItemResultSet>

> <Item>

> <Attr0x0>123456789</Attr0x0>

<Attr1x0>123456789</Attr1x0>

<Attr2x0>123456789</Attr2x0>

<Attr3x0>123456789</Attr3x0>

<Attr4x0>123456789</Attr4x0>

<Attr5x0>123456789</Attr5x0>

<Attr6x0>123456789</Attr6x0>

<Attr7x0>123456789</Attr7x0>

<Attr8x0>123456789</Attr8x0>

<Attr9x0>123456789</Attr9x0>

<Attr10x0>123456789</Attr10x0>

<Attr11x0>123456789</Attr11x0>

<Attr12x0>123456789</Attr12x0>

<Attr13x0>123456789</Attr13x0>

...

</Item>

<Item>

> <Attr0x1>123456789</Attr0x1>

<Attr1x1>123456789</Attr1x1>

<Attr2x1>123456789</Attr2x1>

...

</ItemResultSet>

b) To use attributes only

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<

ItemResultSet>

<Item guid="0" Attr0="123456789" Attr1="123456789" .../>

<Item guid="1" Attr0="123456789" Attr1="123456789" .../>

</ItemResultSet>

We have tested for 1000,100,10,1 items the time it takes to:

- create a document
- write it to disk
- reparse it from disk (I don't have a good disk)
- transform it to some other XML format
- run a series of XPath statements for both selectNodes and selectSingleNode (where applicable)

  a)

  /*/*/Attr1x1

  /*/*/Attr1x500

  /*/*/Attr1x999

  /*/*/Item

  b)

  /*/*[@id="1"]

  /*/*[@id="500"]

  /*/*[@id="999""]

All tests are running on my lapdog (PIII, 500MHz, 512Mb) We allocate a heap size of 256 Mb when we start the test.

## Results

### case a), comparison between Dom4j/Jaxen versus Xerces/Xalan

All times in ms |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Create Document | Write Document to disk | Reparse the document from disk |
Items | dom4j | xalan | dom4j | xalan | dom4j | xalan |
1000 | 641.0 | 571.0 | 531 | 852 | 2020 | 2664 |
100 | 9.0 | 20.0 | 60 | 61 | 62.99 | 68.6 |
10 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 10 | 10 | 11.92 | 14.62 |
1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 10 | 10 | 8.01 | 8.31 |

The most surprising result comes from executing XPath statements. Xalan does warn us in the JavaDoc that things could be a little slow.

selectSingleNode()

All times in ms | 1000 Items in the document |
| dom4j | Xalan
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 127 | 10
/*/*/Attr1x500 | 20 | 661
/*/*/Attr1x999 | 23 | 1662
| 100 Items in the document |
| dom4j | Xalan
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 2 | 3.0
/*/*/Attr1x50 | 3 | 13.0
/*/*/Attr1x99 | 2 | 55.1

selectNodes()

All times in ms | 1000 Items in the document |
| dom4j | Xalan
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 16.6 | 1633
/*/*/Attr1x500 | 20 | 1772
/*/*/Attr1x999 | 20.0 | 1733
/*/Item | 2.0 | 1742
| 100 Items in the document |
| dom4j | Xalan
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 1.0 | 35.0
/*/*/Attr1x50 | 2.0 | 36.1
/*/*/Attr1x99 | 1.0 | 49.0
/*/Item | 0.2 | 49.0

selectNodes()

All times in ms | /*/*/Attr1x500 |
| dom4j | Xalan
1000 | 20.0 | 1793
100 | 2.0 | 36.1
10 | 0.1 | 11.72
1 | 0.1 | 4.3

##

### case b), we use Dom4j/Jaxen and compare how it behaves with a document that contains only element elements versus document that model the same data as attribute attributes

All times in ms |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Create Document | Write Document to disk | Reparse the document from disk |
Items | dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs | dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs | dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs |
1000 | 641.0 | 100 | 531 | 140 | 2020 | 207 |
100 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 60 | 20 | 62.99 | 24 |
10 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 10 | 10 | 11.92 | 8.31 |
1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 10 | 10 | 8.01 | 6.81 |

The most surprising result comes from executing XPath statements. Xalan does warn us in the JavaDoc that things could be a little slow.

selectSingleNode()

All times in ms | 1000 Items in the document |
| Dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 127 | 36
/*/*/Attr1x500 | 20 | 33
/*/*/Attr1x999 | 23 | 37
| 100 Items in the document |
| Dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 2 | 4
/*/*/Attr1x50 | 3 | 4
/*/*/Attr1x99 | 2 | 4

selectNodes()

All times in ms | 1000 Items in the document |
| dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 16.6 | 36.6
/*/*/Attr1x500 | 20 | 36.6
/*/*/Attr1x999 | 20.0 | 36.6
/*/Item | 2.0 | 1.7
| 100 Items in the document |
| Dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs
/*/*/Attr1x1 | 1.0 | 3.0
/*/*/Attr1x50 | 2.0 | 4.1
/*/*/Attr1x99 | 1.0 | 4
/*/Item | 0.2 | 0.2

selectNodes()

All times in ms | /*/*/Attr1x500 |
| dom4j - elements | dom4j - attrs
1000 | 20.0 | 36.6
100 | 2.0 | 4.1
10 | 0.1 | 0.4
1 | 0.1 | 0.1

### c) We also run a simple XSLT test which took the first XML formant (elements) and transformed it to the second format (attr) or conversely.

All times in ms. | dom4j el -> attr | dom4j attr -> el | Xalan el -> attr
10000 | 12558 | 10044 | 12338
1000 | 1181 | 874 | 1913
100 | 98 | 83 | 123
10 | 12 | 11 | 20
1 | 3 | 4 | 10

## Conclusion

These number suggest one should use the XPathAPI class of Xalan with great caution, if at all

The syntax of Xpath statements must be chosen carefully. Contrary to some belief, and of the topology of our XML format, using /*/* or // was most efficient compared to the absolute path /ItemResultSet/Item

It appears more efficient to use selectNodes with Dom4j even if one needs a single node.

With DOM4J, it is about twice as fast when running XPath against a document which contains elements vs attributes.

In our case, we found that Dom4j is faster than Xalant for XSLT transformations. We do not claim this is a general result, but rather a datapoint

## Resources

Here's the source code and data for these tests. Try them for yourself

PerfDOM4J.java
PerfDOM4JAttr.java
PerfW3C.java
item.xslt
w3c_100.xml