On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 19:03, Mitchell Bösecke <mitchell.bose...@forcorp.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I've been experimenting with switching from WMS (tiled=true) to WMTS and I > was surprised to find out that WMTS uses metatiling just like WMS. I'm > ultimately trying to eliminate metatiling for performance reasons (locking > seems to be my bottleneck, I'm okay hitting my postgis database more, I'd > prefer lower per-tile latency than average latency across multiple tiles). > > However, it seems like my WMTS requests are plagued by the classic > labelling issues that WMS is affected by, unless metatiling is enabled. > Philosophically, I understand why WMS is affected by the labelling issue > but I guess I'm surprised that WMTS would also be affected by this since > the concept of tiling is built-in to the protocol. > WMTS is just a small WMS request so that offers no improvement for you in label calculation, though because the tiles are fixed they are only produced once. What can improve the situation is to fix the position of your labels rather than having GeoServer handle placing them in an optimal way. Combining a fixed position with the `partials` vendor option should allow you to create the tiles with out the need for metatiling, though you may end up with a few cut symbols with out it. Ian -- Ian Turton
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-users mailing list Please make sure you read the following two resources before posting to this list: - Earning your support instead of buying it, but Ian Turton: http://www.ianturton.com/talks/foss4g.html#/ - The GeoServer user list posting guidelines: http://geoserver.org/comm/userlist-guidelines.html If you want to request a feature or an improvement, also see this: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/Successfully-requesting-and-integrating-new-features-and-improvements-in-GeoServer Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
