On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Matt Amos wrote: >>>> >>>> "premature optimisation is the root of all evil" ;-) >>> >>> A premature optimisation would be starting with integers, C, and more. >> >> premature optimisation would be writing something in C(++) when it >> isn't the bottleneck. > > I hear a different thing when I browse on this list about ruby memory usage > :)
ah well, thats the price you pay for being able to easily write code without having to manage memory manually (or stick shared_ptr<> all over the place). there is a bug in there too, i think, which results in libxml not fully free()ing all the memory it is using. >> the database is currently the bottleneck and i'm pretty sure they >> already wrote that in C :-) > > The database that is used in production isn't the most efficient one too ;) > So that is also optimised ;) how did you optimise it? (other than converting ways to relations)? > Double: 50~100ms > Integer: 40~80ms > > But the calltrace revealed in both search situation more optimisations where > possible. 20% is pretty significant. obviously thats an optimisation worth having. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev