Issue 98643 - Export to PDF takes few times longer than in OO,2.0
Summary: Export to PDF takes few times longer than in OO,2.0
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: save-export (show other issues)
Version: OOo 2.4.0
Hardware: PC All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Keywords: needmoreinfo, oooqa
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-01-30 10:01 UTC by lanx
Modified: 2017-05-20 11:15 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Content copied from web page in odt (20.11 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2009-02-17 22:03 UTC, lanx
no flags Details
Content copied from web page and exported to pdf (555.58 KB, application/pdf)
2009-02-17 22:05 UTC, lanx
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description lanx 2009-01-30 10:01:02 UTC
Often I use Writer to export web pages to PDF. I have noticed that from version
2.4 (or 2.3, I'm not sure about that) to the latest version, export to PDF takes
few times longer than in 2.0.

Steps to reproduce:
1) Open web page(should contain tables, images, the ones I copy are usally
2) Copy and paste it to Word processor
3) Export to PDF with default values.
Comment 1 eric.savary 2009-02-03 12:26:35 UTC
Please give an sample URL and re-test this in a current and native 3.0.1 or
developer version
Comment 2 lanx 2009-02-04 19:00:52 UTC
Let's use one from my girlfirend links
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.
Comment 3 h.ilter 2009-02-05 13:17:19 UTC
Did you try it with OOo3.0 or OOo3.0.1 ?
Comment 4 lanx 2009-02-05 14:18:20 UTC
Soory OOo3.0, shall I test it on OOo3.0.1?
Comment 5 h.ilter 2009-02-09 15:38:53 UTC
I would like to see the pdf doc with the belonging URL where you are happy with.
Comment 6 lanx 2009-02-10 08:17:12 UTC
Please explain "where you are happy with".
Comment 7 h.ilter 2009-02-16 15:22:04 UTC
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.
Comment 8 lanx 2009-02-17 22:03:53 UTC
Created attachment 60264 [details]
Content copied from web page in odt
Comment 9 lanx 2009-02-17 22:05:23 UTC
Created attachment 60265 [details]
Content copied from web page and exported to pdf
Comment 10 lanx 2009-02-17 22:08:38 UTC
I see :)
Of course you're right.
I have attached 2 files (odt and pdf).
Comment 11 h.ilter 2009-02-18 15:08:32 UTC
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 ;)
Comment 12 Armin Le Grand 2009-02-18 15:33:15 UTC
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.
Comment 13 h.ilter 2009-02-18 15:56:22 UTC
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.
Comment 14 Armin Le Grand 2009-02-18 16:22:49 UTC
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.
Comment 15 lanx 2009-02-18 20:30:12 UTC

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

Comment 16 h.ilter 2009-02-19 09:22:19 UTC
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?
Comment 17 Armin Le Grand 2009-02-19 10:46:54 UTC
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?
Comment 18 lanx 2009-02-19 23:16:38 UTC
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?
Comment 19 philipp.lohmann 2009-03-19 12:53:41 UTC
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 ?
Comment 20 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 2009-03-19 15:35:11 UTC
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.
Comment 21 philipp.lohmann 2009-03-19 16:11:29 UTC
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.
Comment 22 lanx 2009-03-19 23:50:45 UTC
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.
Comment 23 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 2009-03-20 14:53:51 UTC
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.
Comment 24 Oliver Specht 2009-09-30 09:30:54 UTC
Target changed to 3.x
Comment 25 Marcus 2017-05-20 11:15:26 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "".