В этом посте рассматривается эффективность демонтажа XML-документа для объектов Java с использованием различных подходов. Документ XML очень прост. Он содержит коллекцию сущностей Person.
Существует соответствующий Java-объект Person для объекта Person в XML
…
и объект PersonList для представления коллекции Persons.
Были исследованы следующие подходы:
- Различные ароматы JAXB
- SAX
- DOM
Во всех случаях целью было получить сущности в документе XML для соответствующих объектов Java. Аннотации JAXB для POJOS Person и PersonList используются в тестах JAXB. Те же классы могут использоваться в тестах SAX и DOM (аннотации будут просто игнорироваться). Изначально ссылка
Были использованы реализации для JAXB, SAX и DOM. Затем использовали разбор Woodstox STAX. Это можно было бы назвать в некоторых тестах JAXB.
Тесты проводились на моем ноутбуке Dell, двухъядерном процессоре Pentium с частотой 2,1 ГГц и Windows 7.
Тест 1 — Использование JAXB для демаршаллизации файла Java.
Test 1 illustrates how simple the progamming model for JAXB is. It is very easy to go from an XML file to Java objects. There is no need to get involved with the nitty gritty details of marshalling and parsing.
Test 2 — Using JAXB to unmarshall a Streamsource
Test 2 is similar Test 1, except this time a Streamsource object wraps around a File object. The Streamsource object gives a hint to the JAXB implementation to stream the file.
Test 3 — Using JAXB to unmarshall a StAX XMLStreamReader
Again similar to Test 1, except this time an XMLStreamReader instance wraps a FileReader instance which is unmarshalled by JAXB.
Test 4 — Just use DOM
This test uses no JAXB and instead just uses the JAXP DOM approach. This means straight away more code is required than any JAXB approach.
Test 5 — Just use SAXTest 5 uses no JAXB and uses SAX to parse the XML document. The SAX approach involves more code and more complexity than any JAXB approach. The Developer has to get involved with the parsing of the document.
The tests were run 5 times for 3 files which contain a collection of Person entities. The first first file contained 100 Person entities and was 5K in size. The second contained 10,000 entities and was 500K in size and the third contained 250,000 Person entities and was 15 Meg in size. In no cases was any XSD used, or any validations performed. The results are given in result tables where the times for the different runs are comma separated.
TEST RESULTS
The tests were first run using JDK 1.6.26, 32 bit and the reference implementation for SAX, DOM and JAXB shipped with JDK was used.
Unmarshall Type | 100 Persons time (ms) | 10K Persons time (ms) | 250K Persons time (ms) |
JAXB (Default) | 48,13, 5,4,4 | 78, 52, 47,50,50 | 1522, 1457, 1353, 1308,1317 |
JAXB(Streamsource) | 11, 6, 3,3,2 | 44, 44, 48,45,43 | 1191, 1364, 1144, 1142, 1136 |
JAXB (StAX) | 18, 2,1,1,1 | 111, 136, 89,91,92 | 2693, 3058, 2495, 2472, 2481 |
DOM | 16, 2, 2,2,2 | 89,50, 55,53,50 | 1992, 2198, 1845, 1776, 1773 |
SAX | 4, 2, 1,1,1 | 29, 34, 23,26,26 | 704, 669, 605, 589,591 |
JDK 1.6.26 Test comments
- The first time unmarshalling happens is usually the longest.
- The memory usage for the JAXB and SAX is similar. It is about 2 Meg for the file with 10,000 persons and 36 — 38 Meg file with 250,000. DOM Memory usage is far higher. For the 10,000 persons file it is 6 Meg, for the 250,000 person file it is greater than 130 Meg.
- The performance times for pure SAX are better. Particularly, for very large files.
The exact same tests were run again, using the same JDK (1.6.26) but this time the Woodstox implementation of StAX parsing was used.
Unmarshall Type | 100 Persons time (ms) | 10K Persons time (ms) | 250K Persons time (ms) |
JAXB (Default) | 48,13, 5,4,4 | 78, 52, 47,50,50 | 1522, 1457, 1353, 1308,1317 |
JAXB(Streamsource) | 11, 6, 3,3,2 | 44, 44, 48,45,43 | 1191, 1364, 1144, 1142, 1136 |
JAXB (StAX) | 18, 2,1,1,1 | 111, 136, 89,91,92 | 2693, 3058, 2495, 2472, 2481 |
DOM | 16, 2, 2,2,2 | 89,50, 55,53,50 | 1992, 2198, 1845, 1776, 1773 |
SAX | 4, 2, 1,1,1 | 29, 34, 23,26,26 | 704, 669, 605, 589,591 |
JDK 1.6.26 + Woodstox test comments
- Again, the first time unmarshalling happens is usually proportionally longer.
- Again, memory usage for SAX and JAXB is very similar. Both are far better
than DOM. The results are very similar to Test 1. - The JAXB (StAX) approach time has improved considerably. This is due to the
Woodstox implementation of StAX parsing being used. - The performance times for pure SAX are still the best. Particularly
for large files.
The the exact same tests were run again, but this time I used JDK 1.7.02 and the Woodstox implementation of StAX parsing.
Unmarshall Type | 100 Persons time (ms) | 10,000 Persons time (ms) | 250,000 Persons time (ms) |
JAXB (Default) | 165,5, 3, 3,5 | 611,23, 24, 46, 28 | 578, 539, 511, 511, 519 |
JAXB(Streamsource) | 13,4, 3, 4, 3 | 43,24, 21, 26, 22 | 678, 520, 509, 504, 627 |
JAXB (StAX) | 21,1,0, 0, 0 | 300,69, 20, 16, 16 | 637, 487, 422, 435, 458 |
DOM | 22,2,2,2,2 | 420,25, 24, 23, 24 | 1304, 807, 867, 747, 1189 |
SAX | 7,2,2,1,1 | 169,15, 15, 19, 14 | 366, 364, 363, 360, 358 |
JDK 7 + Woodstox test comments:
- The performance times for JDK 7 overall are much better. There are some anomolies — the first time the 100 persons and the 10,000 person file is parsed.
- The memory usage is slightly higher. For SAX and JAXB it is 2 — 4 Meg for the 10,000 persons file and 45 — 49 Meg for the 250,000 persons file. For DOM it is higher again. 5 — 7.5 Meg for the 10,000 person file and 136 — 143 Meg for the 250,000 persons file.
Note: W.R.T. all tests
- No memory analysis was done for the 100 persons file. The memory usage was just too small and so it would have pointless information.
- The first time to initialise a JAXB context can take up to 0.5 seconds. This was not included in the test results as it only took this time the very first time. After that the JVM initialises context very quickly (consistly < 5ms). If you notice this behaviour with whatever JAXB implementation you are using, consider initialising at start up.
- These tests are a very simple XML file. In reality there would be more object types and more complex XML. However, these tests should still provide a guidance.
Conclusions:
- The peformance times for pure SAX are slightly better than JAXB but only for very large files. Unless you are using very large files the performance differences are not worth worrying about. The progamming model advantages of JAXB win out over the complexitiy of the SAX programming model. Don’t forget JAXB also provides random accses like DOM does. SAX does not provide this.
- Performance times look a lot better with Woodstox, if JAXB / StAX is being used.
- Performance times with 64 bit JDK 7 look a lot better. Memory usuage looks slightly higher.
From http://dublintech.blogspot.com/2011/12/jaxb-sax-dom-performance.html