I morphed my RTree example into a more generic function. https://gist.github.com/fawcett/5255019
Any critique is welcome. Thanks for your input on this. David. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, David Fawcett <david.fawc...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks Oliver. > > David. > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Oliver Tonnhofer <o...@bogosoft.com>wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> On 27.03.2013, at 05:02, David Fawcett wrote: >> > RTree index and shapely optimizations - 5.01 seconds >> > https://gist.github.com/fawcett/5251327 >> > >> > [...] >> > Rtree index, storing the geoms in the index as objects - 66.10 >> > (only doing true intersects on points:polys where a point hits multiple >> RTree leaves) >> > https://gist.github.com/fawcett/5251373 >> > >> > Rtree index, storing the geoms in the index as objects - 68.85 >> > (doing intersects on all point RTree leaf hits) >> > https://gist.github.com/fawcett/5251407 >> > >> > Obviously something went very wrong on the last two. They use the >> RTree, but are an order of magnitude slower than the most basic RTree >> example. I am definitely curious if my code is bad or if it has to do with >> the way that geometries and properties are store within the RTree. >> >> >> It's the serialization/deserialization of the objects that kills the >> performance. So better just store indices. >> >> Regards, >> Oliver >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@lists.gispython.org >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> > >
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@lists.gispython.org http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
