Closed
Bug 569088
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Thunderbird + Lightning is slower than Google Calendar
Categories
(Calendar :: General, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: zbuhman, Unassigned)
Details
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100528 Minefield/3.7a5pre
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100529 Thunderbird/3.1
When doing any sort of manipulation of the calendar in lightning, whether it be enabling/disabling calendars, adding/removing tasks/events, changing months/weeks, etc... the calendar just plain "draws" the events/tasks very slowly and takes a long time to "refresh". This seems unacceptable, as, for example, on the same machine, Google Calendar's UI seems much, much more responsive.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open Thunderbird from either http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/latest-comm-central-trunk/ or http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/latest-comm-1.9.2/
1a. Install Lightning from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/calendar/lightning/nightly/latest-comm-central/win32-xpi/ or http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/calendar/lightning/nightly/latest-comm-1.9.2/win32-xpi/ (respectively)
2. Import calendar (for me, using the Google Calendar provider, but it *shouldn't* make a difference either way).
3. Do essentially *any* type of manipulation, and compare it to the same calendar on http://www.google.com/calendar/, and notice how much faster Google's interface is compared to lightning's.
Actual Results:
Lightning is slower than Google Calendar's web interface.
Expected Results:
Lightning should have be much more peppy than any web interface (or minimally just as fast as), being that it's "compiled" and *should* be drawn naively rather than through browser interfaces. However, I'd guestimate that lightning is about 50-100% slower than Google Calendar's web interface (even hangning at times, especially when you group the trunk Thunderbird and lightning's together; thunderbird's trunk doesn't seem to be on par with Firefox's trunk, even with the new extension manager they popped in there earlier this month); this is completely and totally unacceptable.
Default theme
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Version: unspecified → Lightning 1.0b1
Reporter | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Summary: Thunderbird + Lightning is slower than Google Calendar on Firefox 3.6.x->Trunk. → Thunderbird + Lightning is slower than Google Calendar
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
You can't compare apples with oranges.
Firefox just renders a html page that has been created by the Google server.
Thunderbird with Lightning create and display everything on your local system. They offer additional features that are not available in Google Calendar, e.g. advanced alarms, displaying of free/busy information, displaying of upcoming events and tasks in today pane, advanced timezone managing, ... In addition Thunderbird must fetch all calendar information from the server, e.g. to search for missed events. And maybe your system is slower than the Google Server?
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1)
Well, that wasn't my point; the idea was that it *should* be faster to just "draw" the events already downloaded compared to loading a web page. I'm not talking about a calendar of any complexity whatsoever. The idea is essentially the same as with Thunderbird: you load the message from the mail server once, and mail is currently displayed and manipulated much faster in Thunderbird (or any email client for that matter) compared to loading web pages over and over again in the Gmail web interface, for example.
And, if, like you say, for every manipulation (including just hiding/showing calendars, which is one of the worst/slowest "redrawing" operations I could probably think of) lightning really *does* actually reload the information from the web calendar provider (which it doesn't) every single time you do anything, than that's the problem that needs to be fixed, because that's unnecessary.
But it's not just restricted to network calendars. Even calendars stored locally exhibit this behavior.
Maybe my system *is* slower than Google's servers. But then again, maybe it only has 1 calendar to deal with instead of thousands/millions.
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
We offer an experimental cache that downloads the items once and then only updates for changes. There are some bugs here though, so enable with care.
Unfortunately calendar is not easily comparable with email either. The data we get from calendar servers might contain a recurrence rule. Its up the calendar client to expand this rule for the view range, which can be a very complex operation. For email you are right, its really only downloading the mail body and then rendering it (of course there is more to it, but its a more lightweight operation in any case).
We are working on improving performance and have a number of other bugs filed to fix specific performance bottlenecks. I hope you don't mind we close this bug in favor of the others, since this bug is quite general. If you would like to see the performance bugs, search for bugs with the keyword "perf".
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•