On Dec 9, 12:48 am, ca8msm <[email protected]> wrote: > The delay could be unnecessary as if you introduce a 1 second delay, > and the call only takes 0.1 of a second then you have wasted 0.9 > seconds waiting for something you didn't need to.
The delay required to meet the rate limit is the price for playing nice and not hogging all of a shared resource. You should never need to delay more than the amount of time required to adhere to the rate limit; there may be times when you can get away with going faster, but that is at the risk of having to do a longer delay later. > Multiply this by the > number of requests and it can be quite a long time. That's why geocoding lots of addresses on the fly is considered bad practice. > > The "paid for" option would involve using the Royal Mail PAF file, and > for the price they want for the full UK set of data means it isn't an > option for me. Unfortunate that. At least in the US you can get some reasonable data for free. -- Larry > > On Dec 7, 4:48 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 5:39 am, ca8msm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > Yes, I saw an example whereby someone had it working fine with a > > > setTimeout but this will obviously introduce a large (and possibly > > > unnecessary?) delay > > > Why do you think the delay would be unneccessary? You are using a > > shared (and free) resource. You can implement your own geocoder, then > > you wouldn't have any restrictions. > > > Of course, that might involve paying for the data... > > > -- Larry > > > > if the user enters, say 100 postcodes. I did see > > > an example that worked by using the geocode function rather than > > > localsearch, but it proved pretty poor when I tried it with my test > > > set of postcodes (in that it only found 4 of them). I actually > > > wouldn't mind if a search was just initiated and the results shown > > > before moving onto the next record as at least I would be able to show > > > the progress to the user. Is is possible to do this somehow by > > > removing the callback? > > > > Also, unfortunately, I can't geocode the results offline as it will be > > > a dynamic and I don't know what array of postcodes the user will enter > > > into the system. > > > > Thank you for your help, > > > Mark > > > > On Dec 7, 11:43 am, Mike Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A GlocalSearch() instance can only perform one search at a time, because > > > > the setSearchCompleteCallback() associates a callback with the whole > > > > GlocalSearch() object, not the individual request like GClientGeocoder > > > > does. > > > > > You could wait for one usePointFromPostcode() to complete before issuing > > > > the next, but be aware that the Google AJAX Local Search isn't very > > > > quick, so there might well be a significant delay while your page opens. > > > > > The easiest solution is to geocode your postcodes offline once and store > > > > the coordinates instead of GLocalSearch()ing them each time someone > > > > opens your page. Doing that has the advantages of making the code really > > > > simple, avoids any problems with asynchronous functions, is much faster, > > > > and doesn't waste Google server resources. > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Williamshttp://econym.org.uk/gmap-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
