here is my test today with GG and AGG
mg2.0+AGG-fusion 17 sec
mg2.0+AGG+fusion 30 sec
mg2.0+GD-fusion 10 sec
mg2.0+GD+fusion20 sec
GD seems faster than AGG
A little precision, i have a huge screen resolution 1900x1200
I did my test full screen
I have also noticed something, the image generated by fusion is a lot larger
than the one without fusion.
We see it when we pan, the image is about 20% bigger than what we see on the
screen.
20% bigger in 4 direction make the image about twice big.
And with a resolution of 1900x1200 this could explain the gap in performance
with or without fusion.
Bruno
Bruce Dechant wrote:
The performance difference can be attributed to the fact that this is a
Beta version being compared to a Release version.
Some things to consider:
- 1.2 used the GD renderer, whereas, 2.0 is using the new AGG renderer
(looks much better)
- there are several places in the code that have not been optimized yet
(algorithms, memory usage, thread usage, etc...)
- Fusion is a brand new feature of the 2.0 release and has not been
optimized either
- this is a Beta and doesn't necessarily reflect the final release code.
:)
Thanks,
Bruce
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Spencer
Sent: November 21, 2007 10:04 AM
To: MapGuide Users Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-users] Mapguide 2.0 Beta1 vs 1.2 performance
It uses the mapdefinition that is set in the application definition,
if its a tiled map then it should be tiled in the client, otherwise it
should be a regular old map draw.
Has anyone else got feedback on this? I saw fusion running on a
laptop yesterday, not tiled, full screen, and it was milliseconds
(500ms) to pan/zoom (didn't look at select).
Paul
On 21-Nov-07, at 3:22 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote:
sounds like fusion ain't hitting the tile cache???
On Nov 21, 2007 6:44 PM, Bruno Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 2 identical vm-ware with windows 2003 running on the same
machine
I start one of the vm-ware, I do the testing, I stop it and then
start the
other to do the other bench Bench is done on the sheboygan sample
at 1:5000
scale
MG 2.0 with fusion Mg 2.0 without
fusion Mg 1.2
pan 29 sec 12 sec 2 sec
select 28 sec 12 sec 2 sec
I know it's only a beta but why is that slow?
Bruno Scott
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Mapguide-2.0-Beta1-vs-1.2-performance-tf4848550s16610.html#a13872479
Sent from the MapGuide Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
--
Zac Spitzer
http://zacster.blogspot.com/
+61 405 847 168 (aussie moible)
___
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
___
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
___
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Mapguide-2.0-Beta1-vs-1.2-performance-tf4848550s16610.html#a13897170
Sent from the MapGuide Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
