On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Even Rouault
wrote:
> The issues were with multiple layer joins with GeoServer in some
> circumstances not very
> clearly understood ( I don't want to particularly point fingers at
> GeoServer, as server side joins is a pretty advanced
On 20/07/16 18:17, Even Rouault wrote:
>> True... Although we could replace the features in the cache instead of
>> dropping the new ones for a tiny improvement.
> That would indeed help for the next feature request
>
>> There might be less complicated examples but this is the one I managed to
> True... Although we could replace the features in the cache instead of
> dropping the new ones for a tiny improvement.
That would indeed help for the next feature request
>
> Question: *is **there anybody using WFS with this option unchecked?*
> And if yes, for what reason?
> >>>
On 20/07/16 17:51, Even Rouault wrote:
>> In which case does that help? Isn't every cached feature downloaded
>> again (with potentially more up to date information) anyway?
> You get the feeling of a more responsive UI when you can reuse already
> downloaded features, but that's true that if
> In which case does that help? Isn't every cached feature downloaded
> again (with potentially more up to date information) anyway?
You get the feeling of a more responsive UI when you can reuse already
downloaded features, but that's true that if the server content has changed in
between, you
On 20/07/16 17:35, Even Rouault wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I am a bit confused by the WFS option *"Only request features
>> overlapping the view extent"*.
>>
>> In general, that's what every provider does by default and is a safe
>> strategy to use. If this option is unchecked, QGIS will just start
>>
Hi,
I am a bit confused by the WFS option *"Only request features
overlapping the view extent"*.
In general, that's what every provider does by default and is a safe
strategy to use. If this option is unchecked, QGIS will just start
downloading features randomly until it hits a server limit (or