I think the max number of queries for one location should be 4 search boxes. I could be wrong.
On Dec 5, 8:47 pm, lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks guys, that's what I was hoping to hear, you saved me a couple > hours trying to prove it for myself (not to mention the frustration). > After I went away and thought about it some more I figured there must > be some 'smarts' in the database to prevent the query time from > increasing. Otherwise how could any database scale well... > > No merge joins or IN operators in my code, so nothing to worry about > there. > > After a _lot_ more testing I'm finding that query time does scale with > the number of fetched _results_, not the DB size. During early > testing I convinced myself that increasing the DB size was slowing my > query down, when really the number of results were increasing as I > added more data, doh (it was getting late ;-) ). > > The overall solution that seems to be working well for me at the > moment is to have different tables for different resolutions. As the > size of the geometric bounds increases I switch between a few tables, > each one with a lower fidelity therefore reducing the number of > results that can be returned. Visually it works similar to Level Of > Detail techniques you see in some 3D modeling packages. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
