If you truly can't do any caching then I'd guess arbitrary maps would perform slightly better. Less requests to the server for each view you're looking at.
But you probably could cache tiles in your use case. Could use parameter filters in GeoWebCache - http://geowebcache.org/docs/current/configuration/layers/parameterfilters.html These will make a series of caches based on whatever free parameter you want. So you should be able to do it on your SQL parameter. Combine that with some disk quota configuration so you end up just caching the most requested tiles and you should have a decent cache for the requests that are issued most often. On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Ragnvald Larsen <ragnvald.lar...@dirnat.no> wrote: > I have been looking for some statistics on differences in efficiency for > Geoserver in providing map tiles or arbitrary maps. Tile caching is not an > option in one of our projects due to the use of SQL parameter WMS services > (http://www.mindland.com/wp/?p=121). > > > > Any statistics or sources for further information are interesting. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ragnvald > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. > Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. > Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-users mailing list > Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Geoserver-users mailing list Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
