Performance Problem with large file

[Richard Gaskin]

Paul Looney wrote:
> If it is taking 3 seconds now, processing from a variable should take 
> (far) less than one second. If that is so, then you will not need to 
> worry about covering the "hole".
> I do second Richard's suggestion about moving from XML; it is really 
> slow, takes more memory for code, takes more memory for data, etc. - 
> worth asking the vendor if it is necessary.

Some vendors won't listen. WebMerge works with a lot of merchant data 
feeds, and some of the vendors are so fixated on the fashionability of 
XML that even the argument about the impact in their service usage 
doesn't sway them.

> Also, are you using "repeat with" where you could be using "repeat 
> for"? The latter is about ten times faster.

Paul raises a very important point here; "repeat for each" is a 
performance godsend.

One great thing about this list is that if you'll post the code you'll 
have a small army of seasoned pros rewrite it for you for free. :)

Len, can you post that handler?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com