xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: FOP 0.20.5 versus FOP 0.92 performance
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:05:37 GMT
Thanks for sharing these results with us. When I did some benchmarks
about 11 months ago the performance was slightly in favor of the new
code. In the meantime, new functionality has come in and it could be
that some of the changes may have had a negative impact on performance.
However, performance is always largely dependent on the kind of document
you're processing. So, it would be great if you could give some info
about the documents you've tested with (number and size of images, usage
of markers, page-number-citations etc. etc.).

In case your test documents contain a number of images, I'd be very
grateful if you could retest with the latest dev code (FOP Trunk). Fixes
in memory handling could have a larger impact on speed and memory
consumption. There's also a bug in 0.92beta concerning color profiles
which blew up the generated PDFs unnecessarily. That's the only way I
can explain the large increase of the PDF size. The PDFs generated by
the new versions are expected to be a little larger due to certain new
features but this should be in the area of a few KB max per document.

On 02.08.2006 19:37:59 Donald Mackinnon wrote:
> Hi
> I have generated large PDF reports on a Solaris 10 server running Java
> 1.5.0_01 for FOP release 0.20.5 and 0.92 Beta and findings are as
> follows:-
> 1)  FOP 0.92 Beta appears to be freeing up memory rapidly after .pdf
> generation whereas FOP 0.20.5 does not.
> 2)  FOP 0.92 Beta appears to use up significantly more memory in the
> generation of the .pdf (circa 60% in the case of a big report)
> 3)  The .pdf reports are taking significantly longer to create (between
> 50% and 100%) with the FOP 0.92. 
> 4)  The resultant .pdf file size created with FOP .92 Beta is
> significantly larger than the FOP 0.20.5  as it has increased from
> 6.42MB to 12.5MB.
> 5) There are no forward-references in the XSLT file to improve
> performance.
> Are these results to be expected?

Jeremias Maerki

To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

View raw message