2009/5/11 Charles T. Bell <cbel...@cfl.rr.com>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > David B Teague wrote: >> Johnny Rosenberg wrote: >>> I just installed OpenOffice.org 3.1.0 on my Ubuntu 8.10 system. Before >>> I did that I read about what's new and things like that. It was >>> interesting to see that they finally did something about at least some >>> speed issues, so I was looking forward to install it and see if it >>> feels faster. >>> >>> However, fixing a few speed issues doesn't necessary mean that there >>> are no speed issues left, so I tried something that I tried years ago, >>> which was slow back then. Unfortunately I don't remember HOW slow it >>> was then and I used another computer then too. >>> >>> So now I'm asking others to test this too, and tell me if you agree >>> with me that this could be done a lot faster. If you have Excel, it >>> would be interesting if you converted it to Excel format and did the >>> same test in Excel. >>> >>> Test what? Ok, I'll come to the point. >>> >>> First download this test document: >>> http://hem.bredband.net/guraknugen/TestfileAutofilter.ods >>> >>> It's about 500 kB so it will take some time to download with a slow >>> connection. >>> Don't worry about what's in the file. Most of the words there are fake >>> (created with a random name macro also included in that file - you >>> don't need that macro in this test though). >>> >>> There are a bit more than 2000 rows and what I want you to do is to >>> use the autofilter function. >>> For example I did this: >>> Click the autofilter button in the ”Till” column, which is column I. >>> Select the first thing in the list: ”Adindy” (yes, it's a fake word >>> and means nothing - if it does in some language, it's a coincidence). >>> This took about 18 seconds on my computer! >>> Selecting All took about 15 s. >>> >>> One strange thing is that I tested this again now, after downloading >>> the file from the address mentioned above, and now it's a lot faster: >>> 8 seconds for ”Adindy” and about 3 seconds for All. >>> >>> Still, this is only about 2000 rows. 65536 rows shouldn't take more >>> than a second or so. >>> And selecting all sheet and then select ”Show” is a lot faster than >>> then selecting All from the Autofilter thing. >>> >>> I was going to file a but report (speed issue) about this, but I want >>> to hear other's opinions first. >>> >>> 1.6 GHz dual core, 2.0 MiB RAM, OpenOffice 3.1.0, Ubuntu 8.10. >>> >> 1.6 GHz Sempron 2800, 333 MHz backplane, 1 GB RAM, OO.o 3.1.0 >> Windows XP SP3 >> With OO.o not in memory, it takes 30 seconds to load OO.o to start >> an empty odt document. That is about twice as long as 3.0.1 took. >> However, once OO.o is in memory, opening an existing 50 K odt >> document takes 3 to 4 seconds. >> >> I believe 3.1.0 startup with OO.o not in memory is just too slow. >> >> I fetched the file you link to above. My system takes about 15 >> seconds to start OO.o and load this spread sheet with OO.o in >> memory. I have no basis for comparison with OO.o 3.0.1 for I do not >> use spreadsheets. >> >> On my system with OO.o 3.1.0 in memory: >> >> autofilter on Adindy on column I takes about 6 seconds >> "all" filter takes about 3 seconds >> >> I hope this is useful to you. >> >> David Teague > I downloaded the mentioned file and tried the tests as shown. > To open file: 6 seconds > To filter "Adindy": 7 seconds > To filter "All": 3 seconds > To open 3.0.1 "empty" .odt file: 3 seconds > To open 11KB file with OOo Writer open already: 1second > > Equipment: > ASUS MB M2N32-SLI Deluxe > AMD64 processor 2.83 GHz > 8 GB RAM > Kubuntu 9.04, Jaunty Jackalope > KDE 4.2.3 > > If they ever provide OOo in AMD64 I will download and test it and post > the details if needed. > > > Tom Bell
Thanks, everyone. Seems like the Windows version is a bit faster than the Linux version for some strange reason. Is OpenOffice.org optimized for Windows in some way? Because my impression when I switched to Ubuntu almost two years ago was that OpenOffice.org ran faster on Ubuntu than it did on XP (same laptop as the one I use right now in both cases). When I did the test on Windows XP two years ago or so, I think it took even longer, I think that was OpenOffice.org 2.0 or something like that, on the other hand. If someone happens to have Excel installed, it would be nice to know the result of this test in Excel. I guess you could open Excel and OpenOffice.org Calc and just copy the cells over from Calc to Excel, right? Maybe you have to create a new autofilter as well in Excel. Or maybe it's easier to just let OpenOffice.org convert the file. Is Excel quicker? In that case, how much quicker? > Web Cracked: > Let me get this straight. > You use the autofilter to display all of the "Adindy" > "records" in the file. Is that correct? > It will show 16(?) Adindy "records". Yes, that's correct. Thanks for your info. So, if someone will compare with Excel, what do we think about this? Should a bit more than 2000 rows take this long to filter? Last time I last Excel was Excel '97 on Windows 98 and I remember that I was quite disappointed when I switched to OpenOffice.org (version 1.0.3 which was the latest version by that time) and did the same thing with the same file there, since it took so long. J.R. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
