Stacking in Lightroom 5 So Slow it is Not Usable - LR 4 is 20x faster - Solutions?

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
I just signed up for CC and installed LR 5.3 on my new laptop. I noticed generally slow performance and stacking is so slow as to be unusable. So I ran a performance test comparing LR 4.4 on my old notebook to LR 5.3 on the new one

Stacking 3 photos in a catalog of 2860 photos in LR 4.4 on my old notebook takes about a second - just long enough to notice some work is getting done, but too fast to time accurate.

Stacking 3 photos in the same catalog (but updated to LR 5 format) takes 13-16 seconds - seems to be slightly faster stacked from filmstrip compared to Grid. Nevertheless- not usable. It would take me 5 hours just to stack the bracketed photos in this modest sized catalog.

What is the problem with LR 5 performance on this simple task and is there something I can do or has Adobe fundamentally broken LR in some way with the Creative Cloud offering?

FYI Hardware - old CPU and new CPU performance should be within 5% however every other element of the new system hardware is 2-5x faster than the old one.

New Laptop Lenovo Yoga2 (i7-4500U dual core 1.8-2.4 Ghz, 4Mb L3 cache, Intel 4400 graphics, 8Gb RAM, 512Gb SSD, Lightroom CC 5.3, USB3 external disk over native USB 3 connection)

Old laptop Lenovo T420 (i5-2520 dual core 2.5Ghz, 3Mb L3 cache, Intel 3000 graphics, 8Gb RAM, 500Gb rotating disk, Lightroom 4.4, sames USB 3 external disk over USB 2 connection).
Photo of Ed Davies

Ed Davies

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
989 Images in LR 5.3 (Win 7 64 Bit I7-3930 - 12 GB Ram) takes 1 second here

I'd say you may have a system problem as your system is not performing typically.

Here's what I'd try

1st. Optimize your catalog
2nd. Reset your Preference File
3rdf Reinstall Lightroom.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 3865 Posts
  • 1023 Reply Likes
I experienced horrible stacking performance in LR 5, which (for me) was corrected in LR 5.2:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

In addition to Rikk's suggestions, you might also make sure that the Metadata panel on the right is closed or set to "Default". In versions prior to LR 5.3, if the panel was open and set to something other than "Default", basic Library operations could be really slow:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

(But this no longer occurs for me in LR 5.3.)
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2656 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
It also could be that LR is doing something in the background if you've just upgraded the catalog or just installed LR 5.

You are allowed 2 installs of LR so you can try installing LR 4 on the new computer or LR 5 on the old computer and see if the stacking times are more because of the computer or because of the LR version.
Photo of Ed Davies

Ed Davies

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for suggestions. I did optimize the catalog before doing the timing test so that is not it. Lightroom 5.3 was just installed the day before I ran the tests on this brand new laptop.

The Metadata panel is open and not set to default as I was actively entering keywords as I was working with the new images. I will give that a try but it is not obvious to me why I should not be able to work with metadata without slowing Lightroom to a crawl - is the program not essentially all about dealing with metadata?

I will try the install of 4.4 onto the new machine when I get home and have access to my physical LR4 package so I can do a direct comparison on the new machine.

I also checked adobe performance optimization suggestions and one was to set the zoom level in the Navigator pane to 1:2 or 1:3 rather than Fit or Fill. I ended up changing it to 1:4 as that was the best fit for my screen and that did significantly improve stacking performance - now it is only 4-5x slower than my old laptop rather than 20x slower. It is not obvious to me why this would affect stacking performance as this setting does not seem to change anything in the filmstrip or grid views which is where I was doing the stacking. I find this very peculiar - but hey if it helps I can live with that.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 3865 Posts
  • 1023 Reply Likes
Ed asked, "It is not obvious to me why I should not be able to work with metadata without slowing Lightroom to a crawl - is the program not essentially all about dealing with metadata?"

Agreed, LR shouldn't go slow doing normal Library operations. This was pretty clearly a performance bug that struck a number of us.
Photo of Ed Davies

Ed Davies

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So I when I got home this afternoon I tried setting the Metadata panel back to default as suggested above, and i left the Navigator zoom at 1:4 as that seemed to help yesterday, and now stacking performance is reasonable - perhaps not quite a snappy as my old machine running LR4.4 but certainly workable - maybe 1-2 seconds.

Out of curiosity as to what made the most impact I then changed the zoom in the Navigator panel back to Fit, and stacking is still fine. Then I changed the metadata panel back from default to Exif which is what I had been looking at. Still fine.

I can't seem to slow it down to 15 seconds anymore - which is great except today everything is OK and yesterday it most certainly was not and now I am back on exactly the same settings I had a problem with 24 hours ago.

So thanks to everyone for their input but the problem seems to have resolved itself in some inexplicable way.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 3865 Posts
  • 1023 Reply Likes
That's good that you have acceptable performance.

Is it possible that yesterday your LR was building previews in background as a result of the catalog upgrade? Building previews can take a very long time for large catalogs...
Photo of Ed Davies

Ed Davies

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's possible I guess. I am not sure at the detail level what upgrading the catalog actually does - it has not seemed to be a terribly lengthy operation when I have done this previously from 3.x to 4.x. Does the program really need to regenerate previews, for example, to change catalog versions? That would take some time and seem to be a really good reason not to upgrade software if you have large catalogs.