Re: [Geoserver-users] Performance question
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:48 AM, cmaul wrote: > 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. > My experience on shapefiles vs databases is a bit more articulated than that. If all I'm trying to do is to render a whole large dataset in a relatively small image (which normally results in a "cloud" of superimposed geometries) then yes, shapefiles are visibly faster. Benchmarks showed on the other side that if we try to always get a very small portions of a large dataset we get better performance out of PostGIS than a shapefile instead (probably due to the better spatial index). Where database win hands down is with styles that have feature selection based on attributes, such as having a road network, and displaying only highways at lower scales, because the db can have an index on that attribute, whilst the shapefile data store cannot handle that 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
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] Performance question
You might like to look at the performance hints at http://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/manually-building-a-tile-server-12-04/ Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential. If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. Do not copy or disclose the contents. -- 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] Performance question
What are the best practices for performance when using a large PostGIS table. I have imported the OSM data for The Netherlands in PostGIS v2. I have several workspaces in GeoServer that are for small parts of The Netherlands. I want to add OSM data for that region to my workspace. What is best to do: 1. Create a view in PostGIS using a bounding box restriction to return only the small region I'm interested in and create a GS layer of that. 2. Copy the data I'm interested in from PostGIS to another PostGIS database/tables. 3. Don't use PostGIS, but use shapefiles. These shapefiles are clipped by the interested region. I will be using GWC to tile most zoom levels. Thanks, Paul -- 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
