topic AW:Re: biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load in QlikView https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216741#M70040 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi all I had case come in to support and have logged a defect as such the defect # is 33657, hope we will have an answer soon.</P></BODY></HTML> Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:03:46 GMT 2010-10-26T18:03:46Z biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216737#M70036 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi there</P><P>I have a couple of data sources which are Excel sheets - one set is in .xlsx format and another is in .xls format.</P><P>I have noticed that the .xlsx load (i.e. ooxml instead of biff) is considerably slower. I performed a quick test by changing the format (and extension) of one of the Excel sheets and it looks like ooxml load is somewhere in the region of 10--20 times slower than the biff load!</P><P>Couple of questions</P><OL><LI>Has anyone else experienced this?</LI><LI>Is this normal behaviour/something I should already be aware of?</LI><LI>Are other formats even quicker i.e. csv?</LI></OL><P>Thanks</P></BODY></HTML> Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:25:42 GMT https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216737#M70036 nathanfurby 2010-07-07T15:25:42Z biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216738#M70037 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>No Comments? Well I can only assume that the ooxml load is no where near as efficient as the biff load and that's just the way it is.</P><P>For anyone's future interest - I was loading about 100 .xlsx files in my script and it was taking about 20mins. I wrote a macro to convert and save all the files to .xls format and as a result the load time was reduced to a little over 60secs!!</P><P><IMG alt="Surprise" src="http://community.qlik.com/emoticons/emotion-3.gif" /></P><P></P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:21:10 GMT https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216738#M70037 nathanfurby 2010-07-08T12:21:10Z AW:Re: biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216739#M70038 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi,</P><P>that's really very strange! I use nearly every day both formats and can not find any difference in loading time. How many rows are in your files?</P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:35:16 GMT https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216739#M70038 brenner_martina 2010-07-08T12:35:16Z AW:Re: biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216740#M70039 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi Martina - not many rows really. About 15,000 in each file and about 30 columns. I do have a WHERE clause on the load - perhaps biff is just much more efficient than ooxml when it is not a straight load (would optimised be the term I am looking for here? <IMG alt="Embarrassed" src="http://community.qlik.com/emoticons/emotion-10.gif" /> )</P><P></P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:49:50 GMT https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216740#M70039 nathanfurby 2010-07-08T12:49:50Z AW:Re: biff (.xls) versus ooxml (.xlsx) Performance on Load https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216741#M70040 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi all I had case come in to support and have logged a defect as such the defect # is 33657, hope we will have an answer soon.</P></BODY></HTML> Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:03:46 GMT https://community.qlik.com/t5/QlikView/biff-xls-versus-ooxml-xlsx-Performance-on-Load/m-p/216741#M70040 2010-10-26T18:03:46Z