On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:30 PM Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If it can be handled by SQL and XML-SAX there's no reason it can't be handled by XML-INTO - and it requires a lot less logic than XM:L-SAX.

There *is* a potential reason, and I already discussed it (actually, I
led with it): SAX (I don't know specifically about XML-SAX, but in
principle, any SAX solution) only needs to operate on a small part of
the document at any given time, and thus requires much less memory for
very large files. If not the whole point of SAX, it's at least one
very important point.

John Y.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].