Github user LosD commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/194
  
    Made a (bit stupid) test:
    ```Java
    import org.apache.metamodel.data.DataSet;
    import org.apache.metamodel.excel.ExcelDataContext;
    import org.apache.metamodel.schema.Column;
    import org.apache.metamodel.schema.Schema;
    import org.apache.metamodel.schema.Table;
    
    import java.io.File;
    
    public class Main {
        public static void main(String[] args) {
            long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
    
            ExcelDataContext excelDataContext = new ExcelDataContext(new 
File("C:\\Users\\Dennis\\Documents\\testlarge.xlsx"));
            Schema schema = excelDataContext.getDefaultSchema();
            Table table = schema.getTable(0);
            Column column = table.getColumn(0);
            Column column2 = table.getColumn(1);
    
    
            DataSet ds = 
excelDataContext.query().from(table).select(column).where(column2).gt(2).execute();
    
            long rows = 0;
            while (ds.next()) {
                rows++;
                if("NOWAY".equals(ds.getRow().getValue(0))) {
                    throw new RuntimeException("NO WAY!");
                }
            }
            long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
            System.out.println("Total execution time: " + (endTime-startTime) + 
"ms, for " + rows + " rows");
    
        }
    }
    ```
    (Applied the `where` to give MM a little bit of calculating work, and did 
the NOWAY test just to ensure that Java doesn't optimize the loop out. It's 
been too long for me to remember a better way)
    
    The source sheet is 2 columns of numbers, one of text, and 610560 rows of 
it on XLSX, 65536 on XLS (maximum). I newer really did anything with the third 
column, but I guess we're mostly testing data loading anyway.
    
    It looks like improvements for XLS, and a toss-up for XLSX to me (scale is 
milliseconds). I could average to get a winner there, but I'm pretty sure 
there's not enough numbers anyway. Though it looks like the old one is maybe a 
bit more peaky (also noticed that when I, errrrr, tested my test):
    
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1282832/48960652-9df01c80-ef6e-11e8-9894-4ea505f13493.png)



---

Reply via email to