Ok, thanks for the info. Mathias
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Sarah Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:29:57AM +0100, Mathias Versichele wrote: > > I see. Judging by the graphs, the server handles around 1000 successful > > results per minute or almost 17 per second. Which is lower than what I am > > seeing right now. Does that mean that I shouldn't expect any more gains? > > Not necessarily. The server is serving up to 8k reverse queries > per minute at the same time. They are cheaper but still take time to > process. > Also, you need to add the search queries that yield 0 results. They are > listed > extra because in most cases they are more expensive (Nominatim needs to try > more interpretations of the search query). > > If you look at it the other way around, a search query takes 250ms on > average > when the server is under full load. With 12 real CPUs and given that IO has > very little influence because of the SSDs, I'd expect it can do easily > 50 search queries per second. Naturally, that's all just > back-of-the-envelope > computation. And it's only a factor of 2. I suspect you can gain more by > making sure your queries are well formed (adding commas between address > parts, for example) and by reducing the database size to only the data > you really need. > > Sarah > > > > I understand the different factors influencing performance, but I'm more > > trying to get a grasp of the maximum I should be aiming at (on a > dedicated > > system). > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Sarah Hoffmann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:56:30PM +0100, Mathias Versichele wrote: > > > > using batch mode and experimenting with batch-size and the number of > > > > simultaneous batch requests, my geocoding speed seems to level out at > > > > around 25 addresses per second. Is it realistic to be still aiming > for a > > > > considerable improvement ? Without going through the details, are > there > > > any > > > > kind of benchmarking results available (sort of like the planet > imports). > > > > > > I'm not aware of any systematic benchmarking. You can have a look at > the > > > server stats for nominatim.osm.org at > > > > > > > http://munin.osm.org/openstreetmap/pummelzacken.openstreetmap/index.html#nominatim > > > to get an idea how that server is doing. > > > > > > Note that query speed can be vastly different depending on the > hardware you > > > have, what kind of area is imported and what kind of queries you have > (even > > > what kind of format your search term has can make a huge difference). > So > > > I'm > > > not even sure benchmarks could have more than anecdotic value. > > > > > > Sarah > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tel: +32 (09)/241.56.35 > > Mobile: +32 (0)485.16.07.08 <%2B32%20%280%29473.44.59.29> > > www.geointelligence.be > > <http://www.geointelligence.be/home-2/> > -- Tel: +32 (09)/241.56.35 Mobile: +32 (0)485.16.07.08 <%2B32%20%280%29473.44.59.29> www.geointelligence.be <http://www.geointelligence.be/home-2/>
_______________________________________________ Geocoding mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/geocoding
