Hi Pieter,

"Pieter Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/09/2006 10:35:37 AM:

> On 8/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >     Why won't this be a solution?  Among other things the tiles
> > in the Tiff file can be JPEG compressed.  Tiff is _very_ often used
> > as a container for very high resolution raster image data.
> 
> I thought it to be very slow. I'm currently offering the user a
> "Print" button, which allows him/her to print this SVG file
> (serverside printing). I have a fallback: the GIS server can give me a
> PNG instead of SVG, but I am manipulating the SVG, so that's not
> really what I want..
> 
> >     Also you might consider output to PDF, which can often
> > keep much of the data as vector as well...
> 
> I tried PNG, JPG, Direct to Printer, PDF. All have the same result:
>  - slow
>  - crash with "OutOfMemory" if I do not overrule the min heapsize
>  - if I overrule this min heapsize, it takes minutes for any result to 
appear.

   So the 'out of memory' thing is a bit annoying but not really a big 
deal
the default heap for Java is something like 64MB which is hardly enough 
for
a text editor these days ;)

   As far as slow is concerned Java has a fairly odd performance profile.
It is _really_ slow at the start (lots of loading and dynamic linking as 
well
as JIT compiling) but once up and running is many times faster.  So on a
system with a reasonable load it can take a long time for the JVM just to 
get
up and running.  This may be a big part of your "problem".  Fortunately in 
a
server side application you can easily make the 'printer' a long running
server processes that jobs are submitted to avoiding the startup overhead.

> What I don't understand: what is Adobe doing differently in the SVG
> Viewer? Why can they render a low res version within milliseconds? The
> render I want to make is not of high quality (printer), so I expect it
> to render as fast as Adobe. Where does my assumption go wrong? :)

   Can you post a sample of the content?  Usually the difference isn't
this great, part of it is the resolution difference (32000 vs perhaps 1000
which is a 1 to 1024 pixel difference - 200ms turns into 200sec which is
3.5min).  But there may be something in the content that is causing
problems (especially since you said you had issues with PDF as well).




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to