The source ODS file opens far slower than the exported XLSX
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open attachment 133788 [details] (bug 108284)
2. Save it as a xlsx file
3. Open both documents and compare the opening speed
The opening of the ODS file takes around 16 seconds in Lib0 184.108.40.206
Opening the xlsx is a lot faster (8 seconds)
Should be similar in my opinion
User Profile Reset: No
Build ID: ec79f3453471ee9b6ae32e71ff16ea99d9b7751c
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.19; UI render: default;
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2017-05-28_23:21:44
Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: CL
Build ID: e8938fd3328e95dcf59dd64e7facd2c7d67c704d
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
Build ID: ff08e8d5618f84366439c6f48bd7c5f3062905a3
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Linux 4.8; UI Render: default; VCL: gtk3;
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8); Calc: group
xisco@xisco-Latitude-E6220:~/libreoffice$ time OOO_EXIT_POST_STARTUP=1 instdir/program/soffice /home/xisco/Baixades/Untitled\ 8.ods
xisco@xisco-Latitude-E6220:~/libreoffice$ time OOO_EXIT_POST_STARTUP=1 instdir/program/soffice /home/xisco/Escriptori/Untitled\ 8.xlsx
Version 220.127.116.11.alpha0+ (Build ID: efca6f15609322f62a35619619a6d5fe5c9bd5a)
it's much faster:
- Version: 18.104.22.168.alpha1+
Build ID: 5b168b3fa568e48e795234dc5fa454bf24c9805e
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Linux 4.8; UI Render: default;
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8)
- Version: 22.214.171.124.alpha1+
Build ID: 0db96caf0fcce09b87621c11b584a6d81cc7df86
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8)
then it needs to be bisected with bibisect-51max or bibisect-52max
NOTE: I reported the slow opening of the ODS file separately (bug 108284).
My point with this bug report is that opening the ODS takes still twice as long with the fastest LibO version compared to the opening the XLSX file.
xlsx with 126.96.36.199.alpha0+
ODS with LibO4.1
Created attachment 133934 [details]
Callgrind output from 5.5
Arch Linux 64-bit, KDE Plasma 5
Build ID: e78d128e3b7bf45990d1f7b27123ccd616665f93
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.11; UI render: default; VCL: kde4;
Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Calc: group
Built on June 9th 2017
(In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> NOTE: I reported the slow opening of the ODS file separately (bug 108284).
> My point with this bug report is that opening the ODS takes still twice as
> long with the fastest LibO version compared to the opening the XLSX file.
Didn't notice this while doing callgrind.. What would be different when fixing these 2 reports? I mean why do we need 2?
(In reply to Buovjaga from comment #6)
> (In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> > NOTE: I reported the slow opening of the ODS file separately (bug 108284).
> > My point with this bug report is that opening the ODS takes still twice as
> > long with the fastest LibO version compared to the opening the XLSX file.
> Didn't notice this while doing callgrind.. What would be different when
> fixing these 2 reports? I mean why do we need 2?
In my hubble opinion there are two issues.
1. At this point the main problem is the slow loading of the ODT (bug 108284)
2. But even if we are back to normal +/- 16.434s the file opening is still 'slow' compared to the XLSX version. I find that curious. Why should saving to an non native file format be faster?
So: this bug is only useful if the issue gets 'reverted' back to LibO4.1. If the fix would lead to any further optimization (based on callgrind), than I see no point having two bug. Both should be fixed at once :-).
It's your call
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding **
To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.
There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.
If you have time, please do the following:
Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/
If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
Please DO NOT
Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)
If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/
2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword
Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa
Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!
Hello, the same PC, 188.8.131.52 (x64) vs 184.108.40.206.beta1 (x64), same file with 700.000 rows (only data, no formulas, no formats).
xlsx (47 MB) - the file is opened in 32 seconds
ods (34 MB) - the file is opened in 3 minutes 30 seconds (210 seconds)
xlsx (47 MB) - the file is opened in 45 seconds
ods (34 MB) - the file is opened in 4 minutes 10 seconds (250 seconds)
A flamegraph of the opening of the ods would be nice
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 97177 ***
Created attachment 161648 [details]
Here's a Flamegraph retrieved on pc Debian x86-64 with master sources updated today.
Now this bug has been put as dup, there's little chance someone takes a look at Flamegraph.
Also, I think we should a bit some feedback on already provided Flamegraph before continuing providing others.
Indeed, sources evolve everyday and even if all parts are not involved each day, a Flamegraph which has some weeks or months old may be obsolete.
(In reply to Telesto from comment #11)
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 97177 ***
What's the reason why you closed it as duplicated ? 4 minutes before you asked for a framegraph
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #12)
> Created attachment 161648 [details]
> perf flamegraph
> Here's a Flamegraph retrieved on pc Debian x86-64 with master sources
> updated today.
I'll upload the flamegraph to bug 108284, where it belongs. Sorry for the inconveniences and thanks for taking the time to provide it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 108284 ***