Good question, Andrea.
I just checked using my Geoserver at home and get similar times, so it is
not a recording mistake - it does take longer to read the zip centroids
layer with 681 points than the layer with 5047 points. I suspect that there
is a bottleneck at the source with the zip centroids layer.
Regards,
David
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Andrea Aime
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM, David Collins
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I have attached a PDF with the results of testing the performance of
> > compressed WFS (ie. using a zipped HTTP layer to carry WFS).
>
> Very nice.
> The first result is quite a bit odd though... how is is that retrieving
> only 680
> points is slower than retrieving 5000 and has the same performance as
> retrieving 32000? 30 seconds for only that amount of points seems really
> too much. Was the internet connection capped with something else during
> that test?
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> --
> Ing. Andrea Aime
> Technical Lead
>
> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
> 55054 Massarosa (LU)
> Italy
>
> phone: +39 0584962313
> fax: +39 0584962313
>
> http://www.geo-solutions.it
> http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
> http://twitter.com/geowolf
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks
Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand
malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you
can protect your company and customers by using code signing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
