Please give an sample URL and re-test this in a current and native 3.0.1 or
developer version

Let's use one from my girlfirend links
http://uma.chanel.com/makeup/colour-collection.php
select all in inner frame, copy n paste to Word and Export to PDF
I also tested it on 3.0.1 and it takes really longer then on 2.0
It's hard to test because I can't have 2.0 and 3.0.1 installed at the same time
I have to uninstall one before installing second.

Did you try it with OOo3.0 or OOo3.0.1 ?

Soory OOo3.0, shall I test it on OOo3.0.1?

I would like to see the pdf doc with the belonging URL where you are happy with.

Please explain "where you are happy with".

When I'm right, you paste a part of contents from an URL into the wordprocessor
which will be exported to PDF.
Could you provide a sample from this kind of document as ODT and PDF where the
result of the PDF looks good for you.
It would help to evaluate. 
Thanks in advance for your effort.

Created attachment 60264 [details]
Content copied from web page in odt

Created attachment 60265 [details]
Content copied from web page and exported to pdf

I see :)
Of course you're right.
I have attached 2 files (odt and pdf).

HI->AW: This is an further nice performance issue like i98402. 
I've measured approx. 10sec. difference to OOo2.4
Also aw063 can't beat it ;)

AW->HI: What does 'Also aw063 can't beat it' mean? Between OOo2.4 and which
version is the difference of 10 sec? Is the performance loss between 2.4 and
3.0/3.0.1 as the original description makes me guess or between 3.0 and 3.1?
Need more infos, please.

I've measured between 2.4 and 3.0 & 3.1 & aw063(i98402)
In current I've not found an faster performance like in 2.4
And I'm in cc you don't need to reassign to me.

AW->HI: So, is the 10 sec performance loss between 2.4 and 3.0, or between 3.0
and 3.1? That's what i need to know to be able to know where to start looking in
the code. Please add this information.

Guys

I have ment that as I remember from 2.4 it started to be slow,
try with 2.0 which I use now.

Artur

My oldest version is OOo2.3. It needs 1 min for the export
My OOo2.4 needs less than 2 sec. 
What is your time lanx?

AW: Here are the numbers form HI, (W)in and (L)inux (thanks, HI!):
OOo2.3: W: 45s L: 1:10min
OOo2.4: W: 2s L: 2s
OOo3.0: W: 50s L: 1:30min
OOo3.1: W: 50s L: 1:10min

AW->PL: As can be seen, between 3.0 and 3.1 it got even faster (on W), so no
regression from Primitives. What may have happened here between 2.4 and 3.0
which has such a massive drawback?

I have measured time on OOo2.0 (Linux): 45 seconds.
I have read that OO and firefox are faster on windows, 
even firefox running on Wine is faster then on Linux :(

But I'm wondering how come export was that fast on OOo2.4?

pl->od: what takes forever with the sample document is loading the graphics
contained as they are http links and the server seems to be rather slow. When
scrolling the document the graphics seem to be loaded again and again.

When it finally comes to PDF export, the graphics are loaded yet another time,
which takes rather long.

From my perspective this sample document does not show anything specific to PDF
export, but rather that images for the document should be cached locally instead
of being downloaded all over again.

I don't even know whether that is a writer issue; I'd guess this might be more a
matter of framework or drawing layer.

pl->od: could you please have a look whether this concerns writer or should be
sent on to someone more suitable ?

This is more or less a Writer issue.

But, as far as I know the Writer never had a cache for graphics, at least not
since OOo 1.1. What is cached is a bitmap of the graphic for its current screen
output size in the current resolution for the screen output. This has not change
as far as I know since years. This bitmap is not used for PDF export, because in
general the PDF output device has another resolution than the screen. For the
PDF export the intrinsic graphic has to be loaded again. This has not been
changed for years as far as I know. Thus, I suspect that the load of the linked
graphics in Writer causes the performance differences in the above mentioned
versions of OOo. 

Interesting is the great performance in OOo 2.4 - I will have a deeper look at
this version.

Note: Unfortunately, the cache for the screen output is invalidated mostly each
time the graphic is shown on a different screen position, because the Writer
aligns the output area at pixel positions. This causes the output area to be one
pixel smaller and/or greater in each direction depending on the actual screen
position. But this not the problem for this issue.

Note: Currently work in planned to replace the Writer implementation of graphics
by the corresponding Draw implementation. Then all the special stuff of the
Writer regarding graphics will be history.

Well, if the 2.4 test was on a machine without network or proxy access, that
would fasten things up - of course no actual graphics would be shown.

I have updated OO to version 2.4.0 and usually it is really faster.
I have run export to pdf some times and mostly 2.4.0 was very fast (few seconds)
but once for 4 or 5 export took really long (1:5-2 minutes) I have no idea why.

Assigning this issue to OS for performance evaluation.

Due to the fact that work is in planning/progress to replace the Writer
implementation by the one from Draw and that the load of linked graphics in
Writer can not be the cause of the performance change during the PDF export it
is not planned to change the Writer's graphic implementation to solve this issue.

Target changed to 3.x

Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org".