Matt Amos wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Andy Allan wrote: >>> No, hang on, that would be daft. I'd be better off making subtrees >>> limited to about 1000 nodes or thereabouts, to improve the efficiency >>> of partial checkouts. So then I would have sensibly sized subtrees >>> (lets call them 'ways') and the master super-tree (lets call it a >>> relation). >> You miss the point of rewriting ways into relations. It will reduce the >> code complexity and database complexity of all operations significantly. > > quick question: if your schema used ordered relations instead of ways, > do you have an unordered relation type as well?
That is a client rendering issue. The order is maintained as how it is inserted with an explicit idx. If mapnik/geoserver doesn't care about order and it is just a bunch of nodes all being campingplaces, it is just that. >> The amount of tables is reduced, that means the amount of joins are >> reduced. And the indices required for database searches are now more >> efficient. Queries therefore get shorter, no need for a specific way >> renderer. > > except when your relation doesn't relate linear features. What do you mean with linear features? The relation still has the ability to relate nodes or a relations. So I don't really see what you mean. Stefan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
