Michael Kay wrote:
>> The Java code keeps all the data in memory, organized by area 
>> and ordered by date/time. In order to minimize the processing 
>> time (since it's intended to compare the actual XML 
>> marshalling/unmarshalling
>> performance) it checks rectangle intersections between the 
>> query lat/long range and that of each area to determine which 
>> areas need to be checked, then does binary searches through 
>> the ordered array of quakes within an area for the start/end 
>> times in the query. ....
>>     
>
> ...
>
> Short of that, there's a danger here that you end up comparing two different
> search algorithms both implemented at application level, rather than two
> different technologies/languages for writing the application. But it should
> be an interesting exercise all the same.
>   

I'd like to compare the two approaches using the same algorithms (as 
much as possible, considering the difference between functional and 
procedural programming). That's why I suggested disabling the binary 
search part of the Java program.

But it'll also be interesting to see how the XSLT performance compares 
to the original Java code using the binary search. Part of the issue I 
see with XSLT is that algorithmic enhancements can be very difficult to 
implement, and this would certainly be a example of how that can cost 
performance for the application as a whole.

  - Dennis