什么时候应该使用 xlsm 或 xlsb 格式？

自从 Excel2007以来，微软已经将经典的 .xls格式分成了几种格式(特别是 .xlsx、 .xlsm、 .xlsb)。我对于理解 .xlsx格式的使用和用途没有任何问题，但是我仍然想知道在创建包含一些 VBA 的文件时，我们是否应该使用 .xlsm或 .xlsb格式。

当然，你可以在网上找到一些主题，例如:

我从最后一个链接中了解到，.xlsm是某种 XML 格式，因此需要自定义带状选项卡。

除了 概念上的格式之间的差异(.xlsm是基于 XML VS .xlsb是一个 二进制文件) ，有没有任何 很实际的差异，当使用这个文件(除了带定制) ？
在使用这些格式中的任何一种时，您是否看到过任何真正的差异？

180924 次浏览
小开
最佳答案

They're all similar in that they're essentially zip files containing the actual file components. You can see the contents just by replacing the extension with .zip and opening them up. The difference with xlsb seems to be that the components are not XML-based but are in a binary format: supposedly this is beneficial when working with large files.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dmahugh/2006/08/22/new-binary-file-format-for-spreadsheets/

小开

.xlsx loads 4 times longer than .xlsb and saves 2 times longer and has 1.5 times a bigger file. I tested this on a generated worksheet with 10'000 rows * 1'000 columns = 10'000'000 (10^7) cells of simple chained =…+1 formulas:

╭──────────────╥────────┬────────╮
│              ║ .xlsx  │ .xlsb  │
╞══════════════╬════════╪════════╡
│ loading time ║ 165s   │  43s   │
├──────────────╫────────┼────────┤
│ saving time  ║ 115s   │  61s   │
├──────────────╫────────┼────────┤
│ file size    ║  91 MB │  65 MB │
╰──────────────╨────────┴────────╯

(Hardware: Core2Duo 2.3 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 5.400 rpm SATA II HD; Windows 7, under somewhat heavy load from other processes.)

Beside this, there should be no differences. More precisely,

both formats support exactly the same feature set

cites this blog post from 2006-08-29. So maybe the info that .xlsb does not support Ribbon code is newer than the upper citation, but I figure that forum source of yours is just wrong. When cracking open the binary file, it seems to condensedly mimic the OOXML file structure 1-to-1: Blog article from 2006-08-07

小开

The XLSB format is also dedicated to the macros embeded in an hidden workbook file located in excel startup folder (XLSTART).

A quick & dirty test with a xlsm or xlsb in XLSTART folder: 

Measure-Command { $x = New-Object -com Excel.Application ;$x.Visible = $True ; $x.Quit() }

0,89s with a xlsb (binary) versus 1,3s with the same content in xlsm format (xml in a zip file) ... :)

小开

One could think that xlsb has only advantages over xlsm. The fact that xlsm is XML-based and xlsb is binary is that when workbook corruption occurs, you have better chances to repair a xlsm than a xlsb.

小开

Just for posterity, here's the text from several external sources regarding the Excel file formats. Some of these have been mentioned in other answers to this question but without reproducing the essential content.

1. From Doug Mahugh, August 22, 2006:

...the new XLSB binary format. Like Open XML, it’s a full-fidelity file format that can store anything you can create in Excel, but the XLSB format is optimized for performance in ways that aren’t possible with a pure XML format.

The XLSB format (also sometimes referred to as BIFF12, as in “binary file format for Office 12”) uses the same Open Packaging Convention used by the Open XML formats and XPS. So it’s basically a ZIP container, and you can open it with any ZIP tool to see what’s inside. But instead of .XML parts within the package, you’ll find .BIN parts...

This article also refers to documentation about the BIN format, too lengthy to reproduce here.

2. From MSDN Archive, August 29, 2006 which in turn cites an already-missing blog post regarding the XLSB format:

Even though we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that our XML formats open quickly and efficiently, this binary format is still more efficient for Excel to open and save, and can lead to some performance improvements for workbooks that contain a lot of data, or that would require a lot of XML parsing during the Open process. (In fact, we’ve found that the new binary format is faster than the old XLS format in many cases.) Also, there is no macro-free version of this file format – all XLSB files can contain macros (VBA and XLM). In all other respects, it is functionally equivalent to the XML file format above:

File size – file size of both formats is approximately the same, since both formats are saved to disk using zip compression Architecture – both formats use the same packaging structure, and both have the same part-level structures. Feature support – both formats support exactly the same feature set Runtime performance – once loaded into memory, the file format has no effect on application/calculation speed Converters – both formats will have identical converter support


提交答案