Re: [Geoserver-users] Performance question
Thanks Christian, This is very helpful. You're right my data is static and as a test I'm already using the shapefile option. Tiling them takes only a few hours, so I'll stick to the shapefiles. Thanks, Paul 2012/11/23 cmaul > Paul, > > as far as I see your data are static. You will not need them once you have > created the tiles. > My experience is that databases require 4 -10 times more time to render a > layer than local shape files. > PostGIS is among the faster DBs and would be at the lower end of the 4 - > 10, > but not that fast that it could compete with shapes. > > If your region of interest isn't that big you shouldn't run into problems > with space for the shape files. > > However, I would approach it the other way round: pixel size at the lowest > scale is x.x mm a 256*256 tile covers thus y.y square metres which means > you > need z.z million of tiles for your bounding box, double that for all scales > and that is the number you need to cut. A day has 86400 seconds and to get > it done in x time you would need x tiles per second, which would be your > target. Then cut the first ten levels and have a look. Or if you have it as > one job in geowebcache, you will get a rough estimate about the tile number > to be cut. If you can afford the time with a database then do it if not > then > use the shapes. > > Between the table and the view I would expect only marginal differences. > > Cheers > > Christian > > > > > > > - > > > Dr Christian Maul > Project Manager > > Information Services Branch > Department of Sustainability and Environment > Level13, Marland House, 570 Bourke Street > Melbourne 3000 > > PO Box 500, East Melbourne Vic 3002 > > > Telephone:+61-3-8636 2325 > Telefax: +61-3-8636 2813 > -- > View this message in context: > http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Performance-question-tp5017873p5018261.html > Sent from the GeoServer - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > -- > Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single > web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, > SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. > Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov > ___ > Geoserver-users mailing list > Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users > -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ Geoserver-users mailing list Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
Re: [Geoserver-users] Performance question
Paul, as far as I see your data are static. You will not need them once you have created the tiles. My experience is that databases require 4 -10 times more time to render a layer than local shape files. PostGIS is among the faster DBs and would be at the lower end of the 4 - 10, but not that fast that it could compete with shapes. If your region of interest isn't that big you shouldn't run into problems with space for the shape files. However, I would approach it the other way round: pixel size at the lowest scale is x.x mm a 256*256 tile covers thus y.y square metres which means you need z.z million of tiles for your bounding box, double that for all scales and that is the number you need to cut. A day has 86400 seconds and to get it done in x time you would need x tiles per second, which would be your target. Then cut the first ten levels and have a look. Or if you have it as one job in geowebcache, you will get a rough estimate about the tile number to be cut. If you can afford the time with a database then do it if not then use the shapes. Between the table and the view I would expect only marginal differences. Cheers Christian - Dr Christian Maul Project Manager Information Services Branch Department of Sustainability and Environment Level13, Marland House, 570 Bourke Street Melbourne 3000 PO Box 500, East Melbourne Vic 3002 Telephone:+61-3-8636 2325 Telefax: +61-3-8636 2813 -- View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Performance-question-tp5017873p5018261.html Sent from the GeoServer - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov ___ Geoserver-users mailing list Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
Re: [Geoserver-users] XY order on wfs repsonse and filter are different
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Florent Gravin < florent.gra...@camptocamp.com> wrote: > Hi, > > My GetFeature response gives me : > > > > 47.57657 3.38328 > 50.1692 5.89086 > > > > If i want to make a WFS request with filter BBOX, i have to switch long > lat to make it work : > > 3.38328 47.57657 > 5.89086 50.1692 > > > I debug into WFSReprojectionUtil.normalizeFilterCRS(filter, > source.getSchema(), declaredCRS); > where the convertion could be done > > I've tested for Tasmania default layer that is in EPSG:4326, i used the > same order to make the BBOX filter work ... anyway i've heard 4326 has > inverted XY .. > > Any way my question is : > Whatever the projection is, should the reponse and the filter envelope XY > order HAVE TO be the same ? > > Is there a bug somewhere ? > It's difficult to tell, you're not giving us enough information. Please have a look here: http://docs.geoserver.org/latest/en/user/services/wfs/basics.html#axis-ordering And then report again with the full request and enough of each response so that we can look into it Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ Geoserver-users mailing list Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
[Geoserver-users] XY order on wfs repsonse and filter are different
Hi, My GetFeature response gives me : 47.57657 3.38328 50.1692 5.89086 If i want to make a WFS request with filter BBOX, i have to switch long lat to make it work : 3.38328 47.57657 5.89086 50.1692 I debug into WFSReprojectionUtil.normalizeFilterCRS(filter, source.getSchema(), declaredCRS); where the convertion could be done I've tested for Tasmania default layer that is in EPSG:4326, i used the same order to make the BBOX filter work ... anyway i've heard 4326 has inverted XY .. Any way my question is : Whatever the projection is, should the reponse and the filter envelope XY order HAVE TO be the same ? Is there a bug somewhere ? Thanks -- Florent Gravin Camptocamp - Chambéry 047992 -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ Geoserver-users mailing list Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
