Hi Frank, I'm not sure I completely agree about your apples/oranges, here's why: We are in the process of putting together a big raster server, so I'm evaluating the best way to proceed. I'm quite familiar with putting raster tiles in a database, did that way back in the last century. I've decided to use Geoserver, since we need (want) WFS-T and WCS, and the latest speed race between MapServer and GeoServer seems to be a tie more or less. As I see it we have several options: 1) Put the big original raster images in back of Geoserver, access using their Mosaic and the GDAL based ImageIO-ext. Advantage - easy, but kind of slow. 2) Take the originals and build a file-based pyramid Advantage - faster, but a lot of work, plus duplication and tricky to keep updated as new data comes in. 3) Take the originals and build a PostGIS based pyramid. Likely, about the same as 3 in speed and work and duplication. 4) Do 1, but put a pyramiding tileserver in front. It builds the pyrimid in 2 and 3 over time, and is likely the fastest if you hit the cache, and is no harder to do than #1. I think, that since the goal of all this storage of pyramids and the like is just to get speed, that they aren't apples/oranges, but apples apples, since they are both pyramid schemes, just in different places, either in front, or in back of the server. Roger Bedell, President Sylvan Ascent Inc. 800-362-8971 +34 626 855 662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.sylvanascent.com <http://www.sylvanascent.com/> www.topodepot.com <http://www.topodepot.com/>
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Frank Warmerdam Sent: Wed 10/29/2008 10:43 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Raster data on RDBMS Sylvan Ascent Inc. wrote: > Mike and Ivan, > > I'd like to see them also compared to a caching solution, like GeoWebCache, > or TileCache. These effectively create a file-based "database" of little > bitty tiles at certain resolutions, kind of like a tile pyrimid that is > created gradually over time as the image data is accessed. > > One would think the file-based cache system would be faster than a similar > database solution, with the database solution giving no real benefits that I > can see. Roger, While it might be educational to compare to a tilecache solution it is really comparing apples and oranges. Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
