I'have a report, where the html generation for a preview takes about 39 seconds. When i try to preview the report in pdf, it's not done in 4 Minutes. Is that normal? My other reports have about 50% time - diference at maximum.
If its not normal, how can i speed up the report generation in pdf?
Thanks!
(BIRT 2.1.3, RCP Designer )
I would say 6x increase in generation time for PDF over HTML is not to be expected.
Most of my reports take no more than twice as long to export to PDF than they do to HTML. XLS export is in between HTML and PDF.
I was able to gain some optimisation on execution time by splitting up some data sets, and combining others. Some experimentation may provide you with some good results.
However a key thing to note was that my optimisation was spread across all export types, not just limited to PDF.
That isn't really much help, but it gives you something to try.
Related
I am using a dc-tableview table based on data tables with around 1000 rows and 20 columns (most of them are small integers) but the table takes mostly between 3-6 seconds to load at pageload.
DeferRender is activated (true) to render only the current page (5 rows).
As a data source I use the crossfilter's dimensions (accessed by .columns([data: "...")])
The data is currently saved in a javascript csv-string and used by the crossfilter.
I use ajax to load the page.
Are there any other performance optimizations for the dc-tableview table?
Edit: I could increase the performance a bit.
At the moment timings look like this (DOM: 1.48s, Load 4.36s):
I have no big timings in network tab (cordova.js is missing in browser).
The dc-tableview.js table takes about 500ms to 1000ms to load (when I log it in the console). So this is 1/3 to 1/2 of the whole DOM-Render time.
Peformance Record looks like this:
Do you think that can still be improved? Any other ideas?
The code is quite complex so I would need to know what part of the code you need to see.
Okey, I found some optimizations for the general load.
The table takes around 500ms to load, which is not that much but still a number - probably due to the large dc-tableview.bs.min.js file (100'000+ rows when not minified).
I ask myself if and how easy it is to clean it up (maybe delete unused functions like the export buttons and stuff). There is a lighter version of the .js available on github but I need the "move column" functionality, which is only availbable in full mode.
This is how I could optimize the peformance:
Use events to defer the load of not critical functions (gets loaded after first rendering):
for browser:
window.addEventListener("load", function(){
...
});
for mobile (cordova):
document.addEventListener("deviceready", function (event){
...
});
Put everything (the source data which gets parsed) into cache so it must only be parsed once.
Minify all .js and .css
Resize images and optimize compression
Reduce number of dc-tableview columns whenever possible
Any other recommendations?
I am working on a proof of concept and I need to measure the rendering time of a simple website (just a HTML document and one CSS file) 1000 times in a browser. Is there a simple and straightforward tool for this?
I know there are some highly complicated tools with an enormous learning curve, but I don't have the whole week to tinker with it. I don't need anything else just the rendering time, exactly as Chrome's Performance tool displays it in milliseconds, then calculate an average.
If someone could tell me how to find the total rendering time of the page in the (quite enormous) JSON output of the Performance tool, I'd be happy with that. I can have a macro recorder clicking the Refresh button all night. Though I guess there's a way to get it done from the command prompt - any advice is appreciated on that too!
The 'Audits' tab in Chrome's dev tools allows you to run a lighthouse performance audit, which will provide you some key metrics as defined by Google (such as time to interactive): https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse/.
You can run it from the command line too, which should make it somewhat straightforward to repeat it as needed in your scenario and perhaps even integrate it as a test: https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse/#cli
My website http://theminimall.com is taking more loading time than before
initially i had ny server in US at that time my website speed is around 5 sec.
but now i had transferred my server to Singapore and loading speed is got increased is about 10 sec.
the more waiting time is going in getting result from Store Procedure(sql server database)
but when i execute Store Procedure in Sql Server it is returning result very fast
so i assume that the time taken is not due to the query execution delay but the data transfer time from the sql server to the web server how can i eliminate or reduce the time taken any help or advice will be appreciated
thanks in advance
I took a look at your site on websitetest.com. You can see the test here: http://www.websitetest.com/ui/tests/50c62366bdf73026db00029e.
I can see what you mean about the performance. In Singapore, it's definitely fastest, but even there its pretty slow. Elsewhere around the world it's even worse. There are a few things I would look at.
First pick any sample, such as http://www.websitetest.com/ui/tests/50c62366bdf73026db00029e/samples/50c6253a0fdd7f07060012b6. Now you can get some of this info in the Chrome DevTools, or FireBug, but the advantage here is seeing the measurements from different locations around the world.
Scroll down to the waterfall. All the way on the right side of the Timeline column heading is a drop down. Choose to sort descending. Here we can see the real bottlenecks. The first thing in the view is GetSellerRoller.json. It looks like hardly any time is spent downloading the file. Almost all the time is spent waiting for the server to generate the file. I see the site is using IIS and ASP.net. I would definitely look at taking advantage of some server-side caching to speed this up.
The same is true for the main html, though a bit more time is spent downloading that file. Looks like its taking so long to download because it's a huge file (for html). I would take the inline CSS and JS out of there.
Go back to the natural order for the timeline, then you can try changing the type of file to show. Looks like you have 10 CSS files you are loading, so take a look at concatenating those CSS files and compressing them.
I see your site has to make 220+ connection to download everything. Thats a huge number. Try to eliminate some of those.
Next down the list I see some big jpg files. Most of these again are waiting on the server, but some are taking a while to download. I looked at one of a laptop and was able to convert to a highly compressed png and save 30% on the size and get a file that looked the same. Then I noticed that there are well over 100 images, many of which are really small. One of the big drags on your site is that there are so many connections that need to be managed by the browser. Take a look at implementing CSS Sprites for those small images. You can probably take 30-50 of them down to a single image download.
Final thing I noticed is that you have a lot of JavaScript loading right up near the top of the page. Try moving some of that (where possible) to later in the page and also look into asynchronously loading the js where you can.
I think that's a lot of suggestions for you to try. After you solve those issues, take a look at leveraging a CDN and other caching services to help speed things up for most visitors.
You can find a lot of these recommendations in a bit more detail in Steve Souder's book: High Performance Web Sites. The book is 5 years old and still as relevant today as ever.
I've just taken a look at websitetest.com and that website is completely not right at all, my site is amoung the 97% fastest and using that website is says its 26% from testing 13 locations. Their servers must be over loaded and I recommend you use a more reputatable testing site such as http://www.webpagetest.org which is backed by many big companies.
Looking at your contact details it looks like the focus audience is India? if that is correct you should use hosting where-ever your main audience is, or closest neighbor.
I'm using FPDF with PHP and need to print an order manifest. This manifest will have up to 200-300 products with images. Creating it at this point is quite slow, and the images are stored on AmazonS3. Any idea if this could be sped up?
Right now just with images of about 15X15 mm it generates a file size of about 16mb and takes 3 1/2 to 4 minutes, which without the images is only about 52k and comes up almost instantly.
Of course, it may just be downloading that many images about which there's not really much I can do.
I suggest you to try img2pdf.
While this module offers much less options for interacting with PDFs compared with fpdf, if you are only interested in combining images into a PDF file, this is probably the best module you can use. It is fast. It is easy to use.
Here is an example code:
import img2pdf
filename = "mypdf.pdf"
images = ["image1.jpg", "image2.jpg"]
with open(filename,"wb") as f:
f.write(img2pdf.convert(images))
I used it to combine 400 images - it only took a second or so.
I found the extension i mentioned in my comment above:
http://fpdf.org/en/script/script76.php
this seems to reduce the time it takes a little for myself, you may have better results as your document is much larger than mine.
I have an issue with performance on an excel application which uses List Objects (AKA Excel Tables). I suspect it may be a bug, but despite my Googling I could not find any reference of it. I've already developed a workaround for my application, but what I’m interested in is if anyone can give any insight into why this happens.
Note: I’m using Excel 2007 on Windows Vista. The setup is as follows: I have a spreadsheet which holds data in a List Object, with VBA code which can be kicked off via a command button; this code may make several edits to any number of cells on the worksheet, so Excel’s Calculation mode is set to Manual prior to any edits.
The problem I’ve encountered is that if the currently active cell is within the List Object, then setting the Calculation Mode to manual seems to have no effect whatsoever. So if a user happens to have a heavy calculation workbook open in the same instance, then the VBA code runs very slowly. I practically had to pull my application apart to discover that this was caused by the active cell; and I created a new workbook with simple version of this scenario to confirm that there wasn’t some sort of corruption on my application.
I’ve been doing a number of test cases with this, and below are the results from what I’ve found:
Although it seems generally related to the calculation, there is still a time difference when the calculation mode is switched between Manual and Automatic...
Manual = 7.64 secs
Automatic = 9.39 secs
Manual mode is just fewer than 20% faster than Automatic. But my expectation was they’d be more or less the same, considering the issue seems to be the calculation kicking off even when in Manual mode.
Compare that to when the active cell is not on a List Object, and the results are vastly different...
Manual = 0.14 secs
Automatic = 3.23 secs
Now, the Manual run is 50 times faster, and Automatic run shows that the calculation shouldn’t have taken any more than 3.2 secs! So now the first test looks like it might have run the Calculation twice while in Manual mode, and nearly 3 times while in Automatic mode.
Repeating this test again, this time in an instance with no calculation formula in any cells, and suddenly it doesn’t seem as bad,
Active cell is List Object & Calc is Manual = 0.17 secs
Active cell is List Object & Calc is Automatic = 0.20 secs
Active cell is Empty & Calc is Manual = 0.14 secs
Active cell is Empty & Calc is Automatic = 0.18 secs
It’s still slower, but now it’s only by 10-20%, making it unnoticeable. But this does show that the issue must be related to the Calculation in some way, as otherwise it should have taken just as long as the first test.
If anyone wants to create these tests to see for themselves, the setup is as follows:
New Workbook with a List Object added (doesn’t have to be linked to any data)
Add some formula that will take excel a while to calculate (I just did ‘=1*1’ repeated 30,000 times)
Write a quick VBA code which will; (i) loop through a simple edit of a cell several hundred times, (ii) and record the time it took
Then just run the code while changing the active cell between the List Object and an empty cell
I’d be very interested to hear if anyone can explain why Excel behaves in this way, and if is a bug or if is some feature to do with List Objects which actually has some genuine use?
Thanks,
Stuart
This is not relative to the "bug" you found, which is quite interesting and intriguing.
I just want to share that there is a great way to avoid calculation delays. I had fantastic results with this and now I use it all the time.
Simply put, Excel takes a long time copying data back and forth between the "VBA world" and the "spreadsheet world".
If you do all the "reads" at once, process, and then do all the "writes" at once, you get amazing performance. This is done using variant arrays as documented here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff726673.aspx#xlFasterVBA
in the section labeled: Read and Write Large Blocks of Data in a Single Operation
I was able to refactor some code I had that took 5 minutes to run and bring it down to 1.5 minutes. The refactoring took me 10 minutes, which is amazing because it was quite complex code.
Regarding Table performance (and performance, in general):
I know this is an old question, but I want to get this documented.
One thing that changed between older versions of Excel and the post-2007 versions is that Excel now activates the target sheet of any PasteSpecial operation. You cannot override it by turning off ScreenUpdating and making calculations manual. Such Activation WILL make the sheet visible, and cause uncontrollable flicker.
My original VBA code ran very fast on an old, single-processor XP box running Excel 2000. The change to Excel 2013 on a modern machine was stunning in the terrible slowness of code execution. The three areas that kill performance are PasteSpecial from one sheet to another, any other code that requires activating sheets (Zoom level, Advanced Filter, Sheet-Level range names, etc), and automating sheet protection/unprotection.
This is too bad, because PasteSpecial helped "cleanse" data you copy (Direct use of .Copy to a target will throw the occasional error).
So you need to review your code and make sure you are using direct assignment to the right property for the data type you need (from among Value, Value2, Text, and Formula, for example), instead of PasteSpecial.
e.g. .Range("MYRANGE").Value = .Cells(5, 7).Value2
You also need to be scrupulous in resisting use of Select and Activate throughout your code.
As referenced above, many comments you'll find in Excel fora about that last point will make statements that you "never" need to use Activation, which is clearly untrue, since several things in Excel only apply to or require active sheets. Understanding the cases where activation is forced automatically by a particular method or use of an object will help in coding as well. Unfortunately, you won't see much in the way of documentation of this.
Update:
Regarding Conditional Formatting, you'll find many complaints in various fora about the slowness of Excel when encountering a large number of Conditionally-formatted cells. I suspected this would impact Excel Tables since they have many table format options. To test this, I took a large workbook we use that is currently formatted as several worksheets with the same style of Excel Table on them.
After converting the tables to a conventional range, I noticed no difference in speed of code execution. This would seem to indicate that use of Excel Table formats is far superior to conditionally-formatting your own arrays of cells.