Xml Matters #29: The Rxp Parser

An extremely fast validating parser with a Python binding

David Mertz, Ph.D.
Comparator, Gnosis Software, Inc.
June 2003

RXP is a validating parser written in C that creates a non-DOM tree representation of XML documents. While RXP itself is underdocumented, and not for the faint of heart, at lest two excellent higher level APIs have been built on top of RXP: pyRXP, a Python binding; and LT XML, a collection of utilities and libraries.


Readers of this column will have picked up the fact that while I write here about XML generally, I have a particular fondness for Python tools. I had planned to break with this pattern for this installment, and focus on using RXP with C applications. However, once I took a closer look at the RXP library, I found that the easiest way to utilize it is via the Python module pyRXP.

While the underlying RXP GPL'd libary is almost certainly the fastest validating XML parser you can find, the actual parser code is quite under-documented, and comes with just one simple example of a command-line tool rxp. The tool rxp is similar to the utility xmlcat.py that I presented in my "Command-Line XML" tip, and also like a variety of similar utilities--it reads XML documents, validates them, and outputs a cannonical form. You can look through the source code for the file rxp.c to see the way that RXP parsing generates a compact document tree as a data structure.

On top of RXP itself, the Language Technology Group has built LT XML which contains a variety of higher-level tools and APIs. A number of further tools are built using LT XML, including XED (and XML editor). I will take a bit of a look at the tools in LT XML within this article, but my main focus will be examining the RXP tree API as exposed via the pyRXP binding. As far as I can determine, other high level languages that might sensibly have RXP bindings, such as Perl, TCL and Ruby have not yet grown them.

Lets Talk About Speed

RXP is fast. A C application that uses the (optionally) validating RXP parser is probably not much different in speed than one that use the non-validating expat parser (which is itself known for speed). The way RXP works is by building a compact in-memory tree structure of the XML document being parsed. Failures in parsing are failures in tree building; and a successful parse gives you a data structure that is much more efficient than a DOM representation of XML.

Where you need to build an complete data structure out of an XML document, RXP probably edges out expat slightly; and if you need validation, expat is simply not an option. However, for purely sequential processing, or for extracting a small subset of the information in an XML document, expat can edge ahead, since it need not save any representation of already processed (or already skipped) tags. In fact, for sufficiently large documents, expat gains an overpowering advantage--you rarely want to create an in-memory representation of a gigabyte XML document; with RXP you have no choice about this. An application built around expat is happy to pull off a few tags of interest as it reads through a gigabyte of XML, likely utilizing orders of magnitude less memory than the document size.

The speed of RXP really stands out in the context of the pyRXP binding. The last installment of this column did some fairly detailed speed and memory-usage comparisons of several XML document models in Python: ElementTree, gnosis.xml.objectify, xml.minidom, and cDommlette. The tests performed simply created a minimal in-memory representation using each API, and measured the time and memory usage for this construction. It is easy to do the same thing with pyRXP:


from pyRXP import Parser
import sys, time
start = time.clock()
tups = Parser().parse(sys.stdin.read())
print "Time: %.3f" % (time.clock()-start)

Parsing our 3 megabyte weblog.xml file takes only 4 seconds using pyRXP, where the best performance in prior testing was cDommlette which took an estimated 25 seconds on my test machine. In memory usage, time_rxp.py peaks around 28 megabytes, just about the same as the most parsimonious prior contender, gnosis.xml.objectify. In other words pyRXP ties the best memory usage, and is over six times as fast as the prior best!

There is a quite specific reason why pyRXP is so much faster than other Python XML document model APIs. RXP builds a complete data structure in C, and all pyRXP needs to do is turn this completed structure into a very similar Python data structure. In contrast, modules like gnosis.xml.objectify and ElementTree, while utilizing the underlying expat parser for the actual parsing, still need to make callbacks into Python functions for each tag or content encountered. Function call overhead in Python is significant, especially compared to the cheapness of C calls. In principle, someone could write an expat based C-coded Python extension that built an entire data structure before handing it back to the Python interpreter (the speed would be similar to pyRXP). But creating such an extension would require more programming effort than is needed for the pyRXP wrapper, because even in C, expat works by programming callbacks for each tag and content. RXP, in contrast, builds the data structure right in the parser.


pyRXP (and RXP itself) uses an efficient, light-weight tree representation of XML documents. Each node in a pyRXP tree is simply a tuple of the form:

(tagname, attr_dict, child_list, reserved)

No specialized Python classes are used in the representation, just tuples, dicts, lists, and strings (and None in the reserved position). Perhaps surprisingly, this form is adequate to represent all the information in an XML document. The tagname is a straightforward string; and the attribute dictionary is a dictionary mapping attributes to values, as you would expect. The child list is more subtle: strings can be interleaved with tuples in the list, indicating a mixed content element. Moreover, an element that has no content is represented by an empty child list, but a self-closed tag is represented by None. It is easiest to see the structure in action:

The [pyRXP] tuple tree data structure

>>> import pprint
>>> xml = '''<foo this="that" spam="eggs">
... <bar>1</bar><bar>2</bar>
... <baz></baz><baz/></foo>'''
>>> tree = Parser().parse(xml)
>>> pprint.pprint(tree)
 {'this': 'that', 'spam': 'eggs'},
  ('bar', None, ['1'], None),
  ('bar', None, ['2'], None),
  ('baz', None, [], None),
  ('baz', None, None, None)],

All the XML information is in there, but navigating through it can be inconvenient.

Contrasting Data Access Styles

Recall that in the last installment we contrasted several implementations of a simple application for filtering our test weblog.xml document, and displaying some information from it. A single <entry> element in this file might look something like:

A weblog.xml entry record


The file weblog.xml contains thousands of such entries. A filter that utilized gnosis.xml.objectify looked like:


from gnosis.xml.objectify import XML_Objectify, EXPAT
weblog = XML_Objectify('weblog.xml',EXPAT).make_instance()
interesting = [entry for entry in weblog.entry
               if entry.host.PCDATA==''
               and entry.statusCode.PCDATA=='200']
for e in interesting:
    print "%s (%s)" % (e.resource.PCDATA, e.byteCount.PCDATA)

How might we write the same application for a pyRXP tuple tree? Unfortunately, since we have to look through nested lists and numeric tuple positions, access is much less straightforward:


from pyRXP import Parser
weblog = Parser().parse(open('weblog.xml').read())
interesting = []
for child in weblog[CHILDREN]:
    if child[TAGNAME]!='entry': continue
    gotHost, gotStatus = 0, 0
    for fld in child[CHILDREN]:
        tag = fld[TAGNAME]
        if tag=='host' and fld[CHILDREN]==['']:
            gotHost = 1
        elif tag=='statusCode' and fld[CHILDREN]==['200']:
            gotStatus = 1
    if gotHost and gotStatus:
for e in interesting:
    resource, byteCount = '', ''
    for fld in e:
        if fld[TAGNAME]=='resource':
            resource = fld[CHILDREN][0]
        elif fld[TAGNAME]=='byteCount':
            byteCount = fld[CHILDREN][0]
    print "%s (%s)" % (resource, byteCount)

Even with some named constants to stand for tuple positions, this version is certainly harder to read (but I think it is about the best you can do directly with tuple trees). The output is identical; albeit the pyRXP version gets this output in 5 seconds instead of taking 25 seconds.

The pyRXP module is distributed with a few miscellaneous files, one of which is an interesting module called xmlutils. In a clever strategy, the class xmlutils.TagWrapper acts as a proxy wrapper for pyRXP tuple trees. The overall effect is that you can access tuple trees in a "native Python" style that is very similar to that provided by gnosis.xml.objectify or ElementTree:


from pyRXP import Parser
import xmlutils
tree = Parser().parse(open('weblog.xml').read())
weblog = xmlutils.TagWrapper(tree)
interesting = [child for child in weblog
               if child.tagName=='entry'
               if str(child.host)==''
               if str(child.statusCode)=='200']
for e in interesting:
    print "%s (%s)" % (e.resource, e.byteCount)

So far, so good. The code is quite elegant. Still proxying adds some overhead. This version of the filer runs in 7.5 seconds instead of 5, which still seems quite a lot better than the 25 seconds for gnosis.xml.objectify. Those two and a half seconds that the filter spends in proxy overhead, however, correspond to less than a tenth of a second that select_hits_xo.py spends in its filtering. The parsing step swamps this difference, but if you imagine an application that parses an XML document once, then performs hundreds of different filtering actions (e.g. at user specification), the proxy wrapper starts to look a lot less appealing. The pyRXP developers warn that xmlutils is experimental though, so perhaps much more efficient wrappers could be developed.

Using Lt Xml

The LT XML collection is built on top of RXP and contains a variety of command-line tools for working with XML, as well as some higher-level APIs than those in RXP itself. One of the powerful tools in LT XML is called sggrep, which is a sort of grep for XML files. The syntax is a little confusing to get a hold on, but basically it is a way of formulating expressions that are a combination of regular expressions and XPATHs.

Some other tools in LT XML include textonly which strips out the tags, and outputs PCDATA contents; sgsort to sort XML elements; sgcount to count elements; and xmlnorm to cannonicalize XML documents. Each of these tools utilizes input and output pipes, and can therefore be combined on command-lines and in shell scripts. Moreover, the connection with non-XML version of analogous tools can be seen by removing the "sg" prefix from many of the names.

One interesting technique is to pipe several sggrep queries together. Each sggrep command can specify both the main query and a subquery. E.g. "I want <foo> elements that contain <bar> elements with the content baz." The main query asks for <foo>, the subquery specifies properties of child <bar>. The tool sggrep allows for either a more verbose form that explicitly names queries, subqueries, and patterns with q, -s and -t, or a compact form that omits the switches (you use the - switch to activate compact form). Let us create a complex command-line that does almost the same thing as the filtering utilities discussed above:

A webhost.xml filtering compound query

% cat weblog.xml |
  sggrep '.*/entry' '.*/entry/host' '' -- |
  sggrep -q '.*/entry' -s '.*/entry/statusCode' -t '200' |
  sggrep '.*/resource|byteCount' -- |
  textonly -s '\n'

This command is not quite right, its is broken on to lines like:


Rather than formatted per line as the Python filters do, e.g.:

/publish/programming/regular_expressions.html (45674)

Probably some standard Unix shell tools like awk, sed, or tr could be used cleverly to get the precise output desired.

On the plus side, sggrep and the other LT XML tools are quite fast, as much so as pyRXP is without using the TagWrapper overhead. Furthermore, all of the capabilities exposed by the bundled utilities is also exposed to C programmers who want to use similar APIs. And perhaps best of all, LT XML itself now has a Python binding (but for no other "script" language, interestingly).


The home page for the RXP parser is at:


The binding pyRXP is produced by ReportLab who also bring you tools for working with PDF files in Python. It's home page is:


The LT XML tools are based on RXP, and provide a variety of command-line processing capabilities for XML documents, as well as higher level APIs.


The XML Zone tip I wrote on command-line XML processign can be found at:


XML Matters #2 introduced gnosis.xml.objectify, then called simply xml_objectify.

XML Matters #11 updates readers to some early improvements to gnosis.xml.objectify. Some newer features have not been covered in this column, but are in the module's HISTORY and other documentation files.

XML Matters #14 discussed the HaXml module for the Haskell lazy pure-functional programming language.

XML Matters #18 discussed Ruby's REXML library.

XML Matters #28 discussed the Fredrik Lundh's ElementTree XML API.

About The Author

Picture of Author For David Mertz an atomic object is a combination of facts. David may be reached at [email protected]; his life pored over at http://gnosis.cx/publish/. Suggestions and recommendations on this, past, or future, columns are welcomed. Check out David's new book Text Processing in Python.