X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6D4D1C92F for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:35:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44475-08 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:34:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from curie.credativ.org (credativ.com [217.160.209.18]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B5D1D661 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:34:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D6A56017 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:34:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.2.136] (dsl-213-023-255-012.arcor-ip.net [213.23.255.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB83555F19 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:34:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:35:38 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: xsltproc very slow Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/70 X-Sequence-Number: 2147 I've just tried out how xsltproc (1.0.8) performs compared to openjade (1.3.1). I'm not impressed. While openjade is already notoriously slow, 12 minutes for a full documentation build on my system, with xsltproc it took 55 minutes. Can anyone try it out on his system to see whether other versions or other configurations perform better? As it stands, I'm not excited to give up openjade. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net