Randomthots wrote:
That's arguable. Comparing the time it takes to zip the archive with
7-zip vs. the time it takes OOo to save the file, I would estimate that
the compression step takes up maybe 20% of the total time at most.
20% would have been my guess. I never thought that the zipping step was
dominant. I would guess that the other 80% is mostly due to a
combination of (1) XML parsing and (2) OOo just being slow.
Incidentally, I made a PmWiki plugin to export wiki pages to
OpenDocumnet. It much faster than OOo for comparable documents.
Tell me please, Daniel, what extra information is contained in the xml
snippet:
<table:table-cell
office:value-type="string"><text:p>arin</text:p></table:table-cell>
that isn't contained in: ,"arin",
I think this is a bad example. You purposely picked a cell that had as
little information as possible. But even in your example, you can see
that there is a paragraph (and not two or three), that the element is a
cell belonging to a table (as opposed to a header, or a drawing), and
that the cell has a type. There is also style information in
content.xml, styles.xml, settings.xml and meta.xml that include the cell
properties (border, size, width, font, author, date, revisions - if any,
etc.)
Of course, if this additional information is not interesting to you. And
you are not interested in being able to have additional information
beyond what can be contained in a CSV file, then you are better off
using CSV files. But it is unfair to blame OpenDocument for not being as
fast or as small as another format that is more specialized and no where
near as "powerful".
It's like when people send you a word attachment with just text. You can
complain that the word file is unnecessary, but you are not surprised
that it's bigger than the plain text version. And you don't claim that
.doc files should be as small as .txt files for the same content.
But all this is still a strawman you built because what started this
thread was your claim that small tags would make OOo faster. They won't.
You can't just compare CSV vs OpenDocument and conclude that the
problem is the size of the XML tags. That's plain silly.
In this particular case, it's not silly at all.
It is because there are many other things that could be causing the
problems you experience and you just picked one at random.
I realize this is not a normal case.
Indeed, it is not. It is also not related to your original claim, that a
smaller tag was better. It's like saying that your Python programs would
run faster if you use smaller variables. It's a silly "optimization".
Instead you should look at how the program is designed. Every programmer
knows that those silly optimizations do more harm than good.
It's more like a controlled
experiment where you remove as many variables as you can in order to
study the particular phenomenon of interest.
No, it's more like a strawman when you claim that smaller tags would
make OOo faster and use CSV to "prove" your claim.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
