On Sat, 2005-27-08 at 10:46 -0600, Lakin Wecker wrote: > Moving this email to the [email protected] mailing list: > > I work for a small company. I've recently convinced the boss to switch > over to OpenOffice.org and then subsequently to a Free Software desktop > as their main office suite. They use a number of different Excel > spreadsheets to do most of their work throughout the day. As such, Calc > is the critical application, and the subject of this email. > > After some careful consideration I decided to try out the beta OO.o > 1.9.x, as it will hopefully be the released version when they fully > switch at the beginning of 2006. > > I installed the beta version onto two of their computers(Windows 2000) > and tried two of the spreadsheets. I was very surprised at how slow > Calc was at opening each of the spreadsheets(See timing info). After > some investigation I noticed that the equivalent Calc format > spreadsheets were significantly smaller than the equivalent Excel > Spreadsheets; this is great for people looking to save disk space. > However these employees open and load many different spreadsheets > throughout the day, and this wait time will be quite annoying for them. > > > Here are the stats: > All of the load times are approximations as I used my stopwatch to time > them. On the windows machine the OO.o quick start was loaded. I timed > from when I double clicked on the file to when the program presented the > screen with all of the numbers visible and the UI was usable (scrollbar > worked). > > Computer specs: AMD Duron 1Ghz 512 MB Ram, Windows 2000. > > File #1: > Excel Format Size: 7.05MB > OO.o Format Size: 1.68MB (1.77MB with XML optimization off) > Excel Load Time: 4s > OO.o Load Time: 1m40s (either format). > File #2: > Excel Format Size: 192Kb > OO.o Format Size: 64Kb > Excel Load Time: < 0.3s > OO.o Load Time: 10s. (either format) > > I tried the files on my Ubuntu Laptop which is a 2.0GHz AMD64 machine > and got the following load times with OO.o 1.1 and Gnumeric 1.4.2: > File #1: > Gnumeric Load Time (Excel format): 5s. > OO.o 1.1 Load Time (Excel format): 26s. > File #2: > Gnumeric Load Time (Excel format): < 1s. > OO.o 1.1 Load Time (Excel format): < 2s. > > > I assume these discrepancies are the result of caching formula results. > The assumption is that Excel stores the previously calculated results of > the formulae in the spreadsheet and uses these values at load time, > while OO.o ignores these and fully recalculates the formulae on each > load? I haven't been able to find concrete proof of this, can anyone > confirm this is the case? I tried looking for an option to force OO.o to > use more disk-space and save on load times. I found: "Size Optimization > for XML Format" and un-checked that option, but did not notice much of a > difference(9k in file size, nothing for load times).
According to someone on the [email protected] mailing list, OO.o does indeed cache the formula results. If this is the case, then something else is going on. > I'm curious to know if there are plans to address this for the 2.0 > release? If not, I am willing to put in some work on this, but would > need some direction as to where the relevant processing takes place. To clarify this point: I'm more interested in whether this is a known issue. If not, I don't mind doing some profiling and digging to find out what is the problem. I just don't want to waste any time on something which is already being worked on, and/or finished. > The concept is that there would be a check box which switches between > disk-space optimization and load-time optimization. At the very least, > when using Excel spreadsheets, the OO.o loader should be similarly fast > at opening the files. > > Sincerely, > > Lakin Wecker > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
