Description: File opens quite slow in LibO5.4 compared to LibO 4.0.0.3. Steps to Reproduce: 1.Open attachment 113823 [details] (bug 86714) Actual Results: File-opening takes around 33 seconds Expected Results: File-opening should take around 10 seconds Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Around 34 seconds with Version: 5.4.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 53edf60c4ce6ed32f87471e018878c40b788005a CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.19; UI Render: default; TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2016-12-18_06:57:59 Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: CL 110 seconds with Version: 5.0.0.5 Build ID: 1b1a90865e348b492231e1c451437d7a15bb262b Locale: en-US (nl_NL) 55 seconds Version: 5.1.0.3 Build ID: 5e3e00a007d9b3b6efb6797a8b8e57b51ab1f737 CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.2; UI Render: default; Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL) Around 33 seconds with Versie: 4.1.0.4 Build ID: 89ea49ddacd9aa532507cbf852f2bb22b1ace28 but not in (around 10 seconds) Versie 4.0.0.3 (Bouw-id: 7545bee9c2a0782548772a21bc84a9dcc583b89) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
If I measure a roundtrip in Version: 5.4.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 634589b340316ba64b731b4d923c1056be415494 CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Linux 4.8; UI Render: default; VCL: gtk3; Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8); Calc: group this is the time the first time I execute it real 0m38.996s user 0m20.036s sys 0m0.756s and this is the second one real 0m20.590s user 0m19.644s sys 0m0.352s and the third one real 0m18.957s user 0m18.600s sys 0m0.288s so I'm not sure there's a performance regression...
Confirmed. I might do a callgrind run for this. Arch Linux 64-bit, KDE Plasma 5 Version: 5.4.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: db9aec4520766c87a09d4cb0238ed06ebaeaaeeb CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Linux 4.8; UI Render: default; VCL: kde4; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Calc: group Built on December 18th 2016
Created attachment 129751 [details] Callgrind output from 5.4
I don't see a point in opening a new bug here. Yes, this is Fileopen and that is Editing, but underlying issue may be the same, and it wasn't determined there. So, I'd close as a duplicate of Bug 86714, write this info there and focus to solve that one. I still may be wrong.
I don't see a point in opening a new bug here. Yes, this is Fileopen and that is Editing, but underlying issue may be the same, and it wasn't determined there. So, I'd close as a duplicate of Bug 86714, write this info there and focus to solve that one. I still may be wrong but at least: is bibisectRequest really possible here? If not, please remove.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 86714 ***