 Eventually we've started to deal with tasks that required machine learning. Thus, the good tutorial for ML.NET was required and we had found this one that goes along with good simple codesamples. Thanks to Jeff Prosise. Hope this may be helpfull to you too.
Recently our colleague turned to us and asked to help to deal with some complex query.
It has turned out that the complex part was to understand what he wants to achieve.
After listening to him we have forumulated the task in our words and have confirmed that that is what he wants.
So, that's the task in our formulation:
- Assume you have events.
- Each event acts upon one or more accounts.
- Find all events that act on the same set of accounts.
- Note we deal with mutiple millions of events and accounts.
Data is defined like this:
create table dbo.Event
(
EventID bigint not null,
AccountID varchar(18) not null,
primary key(EventID, AccountID)
);
Requested query turned out to be very simple, yet, not as simple as one would think to account big amout of data:
with D as
(
select * from dbo.Event
),
S as
(
select
EventID,
count(*) Items,
checksum_agg(checksum(AccountID)) Hash
from
D
group by
EventID
)
select
S1.EventID, S2.EventID
from
S S1
inner join
S S2
on
S1.EventID < S2.EventID and
S1.Items = S2.Items and
S1.Hash = S2.Hash and
not exists
(
select AccountID from D where EventID = S1.EventID
except
select AccountID from D where EventID = S2.EventID
);
The idea is to:
- calculate a hash derived from list of accounts for each group;
- join groups with the same hash;
- verify that matched groups fit perfectly.
Even simpler solution that does not use hashes is not scaleable, as it's performance is slower than O(N^2), where N - is a number of events. It has unacceptable time with N ~1e4, nothing to say about N ~1e7.
At this point our colleague was already satisfied, as he got result in couple of minutes for a task that he could not even formalize as SQL.
But we felt it could be even better.
We looked at statistics:
with D as
(
select * from dbo.Event
),
S as
(
select
EventID,
count(*) Items
from
D
group by
EventID
)
select
Items, count(*) EventCount
from
S
group by
Items
order by
EventCount desc;
and have seen that most of the events, about 90%, deal with single account,
and all other with two and more (some of them act upon big number of accounts).
The nature of the dataset gave us a hint of more verbose but more fast query:
with D as
(
select * from dbo.Event
),
S as
(
select
EventID,
min(AccountID) AccountID,
count(*) Items,
checksum_agg(checksum(AccountID)) Hash
from
D
group by
EventID
)
select
S1.EventID, S2.EventID
from
S S1
inner join
S S2
on
S1.EventID < S2.EventID and
S1.Items = 1 and
S2.Items = 1 and
S1.AccountID = S2.AccountID
union all
select
S1.EventID, S2.EventID
from
S S1
inner join
S S2
on
S1.EventID < S2.EventID and
S1.Items > 1 and
S2.Items > 1 and
S1.Items = S2.Items and
S1.Hash = S2.Hash and
not exists
(
select AccountID from D where EventID = S1.EventID
except
select AccountID from D where EventID = S2.EventID
);
This query produced results in twenty seconds instead of couple of minutes for a dataset with ~1e7 rows.
Not sure what is use of our Xslt Graph exercises but what we are sure with is that it stresses different parts of Saxon Xslt engine and helps to find and resolve different bugs.
While implementing biconnected components algorithm we incidently run into internal error with Saxon 10.1 with rather simple xslt:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="3.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:array="http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/array"
exclude-result-prefixes="xs array">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:sequence select="
array:fold-left
(
[8, 9],
(),
function($first as item(), $second as item())
{
min(($first, $second))
}
)"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
More detail can be found at Saxon's issue tracker: Bug #4578: NullPointerException when array:fold-left|right $zero argument is an empty sequence.
Bug is promptly resolved.
While working on algorithm to trace Biconnected components for Graph API in the XSLT we realized that we implemented it unconventionally.
A pseudocode in Wikipedia is:
GetArticulationPoints(i, d)
visited[i] := true
depth[i] := d
low[i] := d
childCount := 0
isArticulation := false
for each ni in adj[i] do
if not visited[ni] then
parent[ni] := i
GetArticulationPoints(ni, d + 1)
childCount := childCount + 1
if low[ni] ≥ depth[i] then
isArticulation := true
low[i] := Min (low[i], low[ni])
else if ni ≠ parent[i] then
low[i] := Min (low[i], depth[ni])
if (parent[i] ≠ null and isArticulation) or (parent[i] = null and childCount > 1) then
Output i as articulation point
That algorithm is based on the fact that connected graph can be represented as a tree of biconnected components. Vertices of such tree are called articulation points. Implementation deals with a depth of each vertex, and with a lowpoint parameter that is also related to vertex depth during Depth-First-Search.
Out of interest we approached to the problem from different perspective. A vertex is an articulation point if it has neighbors that cannot be combined into a path not containing this vertex. As well as classical algorithm we use Depth-First-Search to navigate the graph, but in contrast we collect cycles that pass through each vertex. If during back pass of Depth-First-Search we find not cycle from "child" to "ancestor" then it is necessary an articulation point.
Here is pseudocode:
GetArticulationPoints(v, p) -> result
index = index + 1
visited[v] = index
result = index
articulation = p = null ? -1 : 0
for each n in neighbors of v except p do
if visited[n] = 0 then
nresult = GetArticulationPoints(n, v)
result = min(result, nresult)
if nresult >= visited[v] then
articulation = articulation + 1
else
result = min(result, visited[n])
if articulation > 0 then
Output v as articulation point
Algorithms' complexity are the same.
What is interesting is that we see no obvious way to transform one algorithm into the other except from starting from Graph theory.
More is on Wiki.
Michael Key's "A Proposal for XSLT 4.0" has spinned our interest in what could be added or changed in XSLT. This way we decided to implement Graph API purely in xslt. Our goal was to prove that:
- it's possible to provide efficient implementation of different Graph Algorithms in XSLT;
- to build Graph API the way that engine could provide native implementations of Grahp Algorithms.
- to find through an experiments what could be added to XSLT as a language.
At present we may confirm that first two goals are reachable; and experiments have shown that XSLT could provide more help to make program better, e.g. we have seen that language could simplify coding cycles.
Graph algorithms are often expressed with while cycles, e.g "Dijkstra's algorithm" has:
12 while Q is not empty:
13 u ← vertex in Q with min dist[u]
body is executed when condition is satisfied, but condition is impacted by body itself.
In xslt 3.0 we did this with simple recursion:
<xsl:template name="f:while" as="item()*">
<xsl:param name="condition" as="function(item()*) as xs:boolean"/>
<xsl:param name="action" as="function(item()*) as item()*"/>
<xsl:param name="next" as="function(item()*, item()*) as item()*"/>
<xsl:param name="state" as="item()*"/>
<xsl:if test="$condition($state)">
<xsl:variable name="items" as="item()*" select="$action($state)"/>
<xsl:sequence select="$items"/>
<xsl:call-template name="f:while">
<xsl:with-param name="condition" select="$condition"/>
<xsl:with-param name="action" select="$action"/>
<xsl:with-param name="next" select="$next"/>
<xsl:with-param name="state" select="$next($state, $items)"/>
</xsl:call-template>
</xsl:if>
</xsl:template>
But here is the point. It could be done in more comprehended way. E.g. to let xsl:iterate without select to cycle until xsl:break is reached.
<xsl:iterate>
<xsl:param name="name" as="..." value="..."/>
<xsl:if test="...">
<xsl:break/>
</xsl:if>
...
</xsl:iterate>
So, what we propose is to let xsl:iterate/@select to be optional, and change the behavior of processor when the attribute is missing from compilation error to a valid behavior.
This should not impact on any existing valid XSLT 3.0 program.
Recently we've read an article
"A Proposal for XSLT 4.0", and thought it worth to suggest one more idea. We have written a message to Michael Kay, author of this proposal. Here it is:
A&V
Historically xslt, xquery and xpath were dealing with trees. Nowadays it became much common to process graphs. Many tasks can be formulated in terms of graphs, and in particular any task processing trees is also graph task.
I suggest to take a deeper look in this direction.
As an inspiration I may suggest to look at "P1709R2: Graph Library" - the C++ proposal.
Michael Kay
I have for many years found it frustrating that XML is confined to hierarchic relationships (things like IDREF and XLink are clumsy workarounds); also the fact that the arbitrary division of data into "documents" plays such a decisive role: documents should only exist in the serialized representation of the model, not in the model itself.
I started my career working with the Codasyl-defined network data model. It's a fine and very flexible data model; its downfall was the (DOM-like) procedural navigation language. So I've often wondered what one could do trying to re-invent the Codasyl model in a more modern idiom, coupling it with an XPath-like declarative access language extended to handle networks (graphs) rather than hierarchies.
I've no idea how close a reinventiion of Codasyl would be to some of the modern graph data models; it would be interesting to see. The other interesting aspect of this is whether you can make it work for schema-less data.
But I don't think that would be an incremental evolution of XSLT; I think it would be something completely new.
A&V
I was not so radical in my thoughts. 
Even C++ API is not so radical, as they do not impose hard requirements on internal graph representation but rather define template API that will work both with third party representations (they even mention Fortran) or several built-in implementations that uses standard vectors.
Their strong point is in algorithms provided as part of library and not graph internal structure (I think authors of that paper have structured it not the best way). E.g. in the second part they list graph algorithms: Depth First Search (DFS); Breadth First Search (BFS); Topological Sort (TopoSort); Shortest Paths Algorithms; Dijkstra Algorithms; and so on.
If we shall try to map it to xpath world them graph on API level might be represented as a user function or as a map of user functions.
On a storage level user may implement graph using a sequence of maps or map of maps, or even using xdm elements.
So, my approach is evolutional. In fact I suggest pure API that could even be implemented now.
Michael Kay
Yes, there's certainly scope for graph-oriented functions such as closure($origin, $function) and is-reachable($origin, $function) and find-path($origin, $destination, $function) where we use the existing data model, treating any item as a node in a graph, and
representing the arcs using functions. There are a few complications, e.g. what's the identity comparison between arbitrary items, but it can probably be done.
A&V
> There are a few complications, e.g. what's the identity comparison between arbitrary items, but it can probably be done.
One approach to address this is through definition of graph API. E.g. to define graph as a map (interface analogy) of functions, with equality functions, if required:
map
{
vertices: function(),
edges: function(),
value: function(vertex),
in-vertex: function(edge),
out-vertex: function(edge),
edges: function(vertex),
is-in-vertex: function(edge, vertex),
is-out-vertex: function(edge, vertex)
...
}
Not sure how far this will go but who knows.
It's not a secret that COVID-19 epidemic will change our world significantly.
 It impacts on economics and public services, especially on social services of our countries.
We saw this in our country and now the same happens in US.
Probably the same thing happens in all countries all over the world that suffer from COVID-19.
Usually, nowadays, such services are exposed online, but nobody expected such extreme loading of these services.
And they start molder under such load. Programs start crash... and somebody has to fix them.
It's just a temporary technical inconvenience when there is staff that familiar with such programs and technologies,
but what about situation when programs and technologies are obsolete?
When staff that may support them are about to retire due to ages, when knowledge were almost lost...
It's very scary when such applications rules very important spheres of our life such social services, finances, medicine, defence etc.
Something similar happened in US, so US government asked IBM about a help with their stuff written in COBOL.
Probably, in short term, they'll close the gaps, but taking in account the fact that epidemic won't dissolve in a month,
there is a risk to still in the same hole... There are two ways to solve this issue in long term:
- to make COBOL widely used program language and to teach enough programmers that will use it. This is exactly what IBM tries to do,
see this article,
but this way to nowhere, since it is not too popular in society of software developers.
- to migrate such application to new technologies and new platform (e.g. Java or C# on UNIX/Windows). In this case organizations obtain
scalable applications and ability to find human resources that may fix/modernize such applications step by step, in spare time,
without loosing existing functionality. This is what our company Advanced may provide.
And we are not alone. There are many such companies that may implement such migration on high level of quality.
And many professionals (even those that deal with COBOL on day by day basis) think that only 2nd way is viable. Let's see what will happen...
More about the issue, see here.
People compare these two technologies, and it seems an established fact is that Angular is evolutionally more advanced framework. We're not going to contradict, contrary, we agree with it, but it's better for an opinion to be grounded on facts that one can evaluate and verify.
Fortunately we got a chance to make such a comparison.
We support conversions of Cool:GEN (a legacy CASE tool with roots in 80th) to java or C#. In its time Cool:GEN allowed to greatly automate enterprise development using Mainframes as a server side and Mainframe terminals or Win32 GUIs as clients.
The legacy of this tool are probably hundreds of business and database models, milions of programs generated on COBOL on Mainframes and on C or Java on Windows and Linux. All this runs to this time in many econimic sectors.
Usually the client is some enterprise that invested a lot into design, development and support of their business model using Cool:GEN but now most such clients a trying not to lose this legacy but to convert it into something that goes in parallel with todays technologies.
As original technology is sound, so it is possible to map it to todays Java or C# on server, REST or SOAP as a transport, and Angular, AngularJS or some other on client. Such automatic conversion is an essense of our conversions efforts.
To understand a scope consider a typical enterprise client that has 2-3 thousand windows that are backed by 20-30 thousand programs.
Now, consider that the conversion is done. On output among other things we produce a clean java or C# web application with REST and SOAP interface, and Angular or AngularJS web client that encapsulates those 2-3 thousand windows.
Each window definition is rather small 5-10 KB in html form, but whole mass of windows takes 10-30 MB, which is not small any more.
For AngularJS we generate just those html templates, but for Angular we need to generate separate components for each window that includes typescript class, template and style.
While amout of generated resource for AngularJS stays in those 10-30 MB, generated Angular takes at least 5-10 MB more.
The next step is build.
AngularJS builds distribution that includes all used libraries and a set of templates, and it takes something like a minute from the CPU. Produced output is about 300 KB minified script and those 10-30 MB of templates (multiple files with 5-10 KB each one).
Angular (here we talk about version 9) builds distribution that includes all used libraries and a set of compiled components that are to be loaded lazily on demand. Without of the both angular builder that performs tree shaking build takes days. With tree shaking off it takes 40 minutes. This is the first notable difference. Produced output for ES2015 (latest javascript) is about 1 MB, and 15-100 KB per each compiled component. This is the second notable difference that already impacts end user rather than developer.
The third difference is in the end user experience. Though we have built equalvalent Angular and AngularJS frontend we observe load time of angular is higher. This cannot only be ascribed to bigger file sizes. It seems internal initialization also takes more time for Angular.
So, our experience in this particular test shows that Angular has more room to improve. In particular: compile time, bundle size, runtime speed and simplicity of dynamic loading (we have strong cases when template compilation is not the best approach).
Yesterday we run into another Saxon bug. See NPE in CaseVariants.
The problem happened just once and never reproduced. Inspection of Saxon sources hinted that it can be a race condition.
Michael Kay agreed with our conclusion and fixed the problem in the code along with several other similar places.
It is such rare kind of bug that it might appear once during whole product life cycle. So, we may consider the fix is personal.
We were asked to help with search service in one enterprise. We were told that their SharePoint portal does not serve their need. Main complaints were about the quality of search results.
They have decided to implement external index of SharePoint content, using Elastic, and expose custom search API within the enterprise.
We questioned their conclusions, asked why did they think Elastic will give much better results, asked did they try to figure out why SharePoint give no desired results.
Answers did not convince us though we have joined the project.
What do you think?
Elastic did not help at all though they hoped very much that its query language will help to rank results in a way that matched documents will be found.
After all they thought it was a problem of ranking of results.
Here we have started our analysis. We took a specific document that must be found but is never returned from search.
It turned to be well known problem, at least we dealt with closely related one in the past. There are two ingredients here:
- documents that have low chances to be found are PDFs;
- we live in Israel, so most texts are Hebrew, which means words are written from right to left, while some other texts from left to right. See Bi-directional text.
Traditionally PDF documents are provided in a way that only distantly resembles logical structure of original content. E.g., paragraphs of texts are often represented as unrelated runs of text lines, or as set of text runs representing single words, or independant characters. No need to say that additional complication comes from that Hebrew text are often represented visually (from left to right, as if "hello" would be stored as "olleh" and would be just printed from right to left). Another common feature of PDF are custom fonts with uncanonical mappings, or images with glyphs of letters.
You can implement these tricks in other document formats but for some reason PDF is only format we have seen that regularly and intensively uses these techniques.
At this point we have realized that it's not a fault of a search engine to find the document but the feature of the PDF to expose its text to a crawler in a form that cannot be used for search.
In fact, PDF cannot search by itself in such documents, as when you try to find some text in the document opened in a pdf viewer, that you clearly see in the document, you often find nothing.
A question. What should you do in this case when no any PDF text extractor can give you correct text but text is there when you looking at document in a pdf viewer?
We decided it's time to go in the direction of image recognition. Thankfully, nowdays it's a matter of available processing resources.
Our goal was:
- Have images of each PDF page. This task is immediately solved with Apache PDFBox (A Java PDF Library) - it's time to say this is java project.
- Run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) over images, and get extracted texts. This is perfectly done by tesseract-ocr/tesseract, and thankfully to its java wrapper bytedeco/javacpp-presets we can immediately call this C++ API from java.
The only small nuisance of tesseract is that it does not expose table recognition info, but we can easily overcome it (we solved this task in the past), as along with each text run tesseract exposes its position.
What are results of the run of such program?
- Full success! It works with high quality of recognition. Indeed, there is no any physical noise that impacts quality.
- Slow speed - up to several seconds per recognition per page.
- Scalable solution. Slow speed can be compensated by almost unlimited theoretical scalability.
So, what is the lesson we have taked from this experience?
Well, you should question yourself, test and verify ideas on the ground before building any theories that will lead you in completely wrong direction. After all people started to realize there was no need to claim on SharePoint, to throw it, and to spend great deal of time and money just to prove that the problem is in the different place.
A sample source code can be found at App.java
This story started half year ago when Michael Kay, author of Saxon XSLT processor, was dealing with performance in multithreaded environment. See Bug #3958.
The problem is like this.
Given XSLT:
<xsl:stylesheet exclude-result-prefixes="#all"
version="3.0"
xmlns:saxon="http://saxon.sf.net/"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:output method="text" />
<xsl:template name="main">
<xsl:for-each saxon:threads="4" select="1 to 10">
<xsl:choose>
<xsl:when test=". eq 1">
<!-- Will take 10 seconds -->
<xsl:sequence select="
json-doc('https://httpbin.org/delay/10')?url"/>
</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test=". eq 5">
<!-- Will take 9 seconds -->
<xsl:sequence select="
json-doc('https://httpbin.org/delay/9')?url"/>
</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test=". eq 10">
<!-- Will take 8 seconds -->
<xsl:sequence select="
json-doc('https://httpbin.org/delay/8')?url"/>
</xsl:when>
</xsl:choose>
</xsl:for-each>
<xsl:text>
</xsl:text>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
Implement engine to achieve best performance of parallel for-each.
Naive implementation that will distribute iterations per threads will run into unfair load on threads, so some load-balancing is required. That was the case Saxon EE.
Michael Kay has been trying to find most elegant way for the implementation and has written the comment:
I can't help feeling that the answer to this must lie in using the Streams machinery, and Spliterators in particular. I've spent another hour or so reading all about Spliterators, and I have to confess I really don't understand the paradigm. If someone can enlighten me, please go ahead...
We have decided to take the challange and to model the expected behavior using Streams. Here is our go:
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
import java.util.stream.Stream;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
import java.util.function.Function;
public class Streams
{
public static class Item<T>
{
public Item(int index, T data)
{
this.index = index;
this.data = data;
}
int index;
T data;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
run(
"Sequential",
input(),
Streams::action,
Streams::output,
true);
run(
"Parallel ordered",
input().parallel(),
Streams::action,
Streams::output,
true);
run(
"Parallel unordered",
input().parallel(),
Streams::action,
Streams::output,
false);
}
private static void run(
String description,
Stream<Item<String>> input,
Function<Item<String>, String[]> action,
Consumer<String[]> output,
boolean ordered)
{
System.out.println(description);
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (ordered)
{
input.map(action).forEachOrdered(output);
}
else
{
input.map(action).forEach(output);
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Execution time: " + (end - start) + "ms.");
System.out.println();
}
private static Stream<Item<String>> input()
{
return IntStream.range(0, 10).
mapToObj(i -> new Item<String>(i + 1, "Data " + (i + 1)));
}
private static String[] action(Item<String> item)
{
switch(item.index)
{
case 1:
{
sleep(10);
break;
}
case 5:
{
sleep(9);
break;
}
case 10:
{
sleep(8);
break;
}
default:
{
sleep(1);
break;
}
}
String[] result = { "data:", item.data, "index:", item.index + "" };
return result;
}
private synchronized static void output(String[] value)
{
boolean first = true;
for(String item: value)
{
if (first)
{
first = false;
}
else
{
System.out.print(' ');
}
System.out.print(item);
}
System.out.println();
}
private static void sleep(int seconds)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(seconds * 1000);
}
catch(InterruptedException e)
{
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
}
We model three cases:
- "Sequential"
- slowest, single threaded execution with output:
data: Data 1 index: 1
data: Data 2 index: 2
data: Data 3 index: 3
data: Data 4 index: 4
data: Data 5 index: 5
data: Data 6 index: 6
data: Data 7 index: 7
data: Data 8 index: 8
data: Data 9 index: 9
data: Data 10 index: 10
Execution time: 34009ms.
- "Parallel ordered"
- fast, multithread execution preserving order, with output:
data: Data 1 index: 1
data: Data 2 index: 2
data: Data 3 index: 3
data: Data 4 index: 4
data: Data 5 index: 5
data: Data 6 index: 6
data: Data 7 index: 7
data: Data 8 index: 8
data: Data 9 index: 9
data: Data 10 index: 10
Execution time: 10019ms.
- "Parallel unordered"
- fastest, multithread execution not preserving order, with output:
data: Data 6 index: 6
data: Data 2 index: 2
data: Data 4 index: 4
data: Data 3 index: 3
data: Data 9 index: 9
data: Data 7 index: 7
data: Data 8 index: 8
data: Data 5 index: 5
data: Data 10 index: 10
data: Data 1 index: 1
Execution time: 10001ms.
What we can add in conclusion is that xslt engine could try automatically decide what approach to use, as many SQL engines are doing, and not to force developer to go into low level engine details.
Recently we observed how we solved the same task in different versions of XPath: 2.0, 3.0, and 3.1.
Consider, you have a sequence $items, and you want to call some function over each item of the sequence, and to return combined result.
In XPath 2.0 this was solved like this:
for $item in $items return
f:func($item)
In XPath 3.0 this was solved like this:
$items!f:func(.)
And now with XPath 3.1 that defined an arrow operator => we attempted to write something as simple as:
$items=>f:func()
That is definitely not working, as it is the same as f:func($items).
Next attempt was:
$items!=>f:func()
That even does not compile.
So, finally, working expression using => looks like this:
$items!(.=>f:func())
This looks like a step back comparing to XPath 3.0 variant.
More than that, XPath grammar of arrow operator forbids the use of predictes, axis or mapping operators, so this won't compile:
$items!(.=>f:func()[1])
$items!(.=>f:func()!something)
Our conclusion is that arrow operator is rather confusing addition to XPath.
Xslt 3.0 defines a feature called streamability: a technique to write xslt code that is able to handle arbitrary sized inputs.
This contrasts with conventional xslt code (and xslt engines) where inputs are completely loaded in memory.
To make code streamable a developer should declare her code as such, and the code should pass Streamability analysis.
The goal is to define subset of xslt/xpath operations that allow to process input in one pass.
In simple case it's indeed a simple task to verify that code is streamable, but the more complex your code is the less trivial it's to witness it is streamable.
On the forums we have seen a lot of discussions, where experts were trying to figure out whether particular xslt is streamable. At times it's remarkably untrivial task!
This, in our opinion, clearly manifests that the feature is largerly failed attempt to inscribe some optimization technique into xslt spec.
The place of such optimization is in the implementation space, and not in spec. Engine had to attempt such optimization and fallback to the traditional implementation.
The last such example is: Getting SXST0060 "No streamable path found in expression" when trying to push a map with grounded nodes to a template of a streamable mode, where both xslt code and engine developers are not sure that the code is streamable in the first place.
By the way, besides streamability there is other optimization technique that works probably in all SQL engines. When data does not fit into memory engine may spill it on disk. Thus trading memory pressure for disk access. So, why didn't such techninque find the way into the Xslt or SQL specs?
After 17 years of experience we still run into dummy bugs in xslt (xpath in fact).
The latest one is related to order of nodes produced by ancestor-or-self axis.
Consider the code:
<xsl:stylesheet version="3.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsl:template match="/">
<xsl:variable name="data" as="element()">
<a>
<b>
<c/>
</b>
</a>
</xsl:variable>
<xsl:variable name="item" as="element()" select="($data//c)[1]"/>
<xsl:message select="$item!ancestor-or-self::*!local-name()"/>
<xsl:message select="$item!local-name(), $item!..!local-name(), $item!..!..!local-name()"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
We expected to have the following outcome
But correct one is
Here is why:
ancestor-or-self::* is an AxisStep. From XPath §3.3.2:
[Definition: An axis step returns a sequence of nodes that are reachable from the context node via a specified axis. Such a step has two parts: an axis, which defines the "direction of movement" for the step, and a node test, which selects nodes based on their kind, name, and/or type annotation.] If the context item is a node, an axis step returns a sequence of zero or more nodes; otherwise, a type error is raised [err:XPTY0020]. The resulting node sequence is returned in document order.
For some reason we were thinking that reverse axis produces result in reverse order. It turns out the reverse order is only within predicate of such axis.
See more at https://saxonica.plan.io/boards/3/topics/7312
|