here is my test today with GG and AGG mg2.0+AGG-fusion 17 sec mg2.0+AGG+fusion 30 sec mg2.0+GD-fusion 10 sec mg2.0+GD+fusion 20 sec
GD seems faster than AGG A little precision, i have a huge screen resolution 1900x1200 I did my test full screen I have also noticed something, the image generated by fusion is a lot larger than the one without fusion. We see it when we pan, the image is about 20% bigger than what we see on the screen. 20% bigger in 4 direction make the image about twice big. And with a resolution of 1900x1200 this could explain the gap in performance with or without fusion. Bruno Bruce Dechant wrote: > > The performance difference can be attributed to the fact that this is a > Beta version being compared to a Release version. > > Some things to consider: > - 1.2 used the GD renderer, whereas, 2.0 is using the new AGG renderer > (looks much better) > - there are several places in the code that have not been optimized yet > (algorithms, memory usage, thread usage, etc...) > - Fusion is a brand new feature of the 2.0 release and has not been > optimized either > - this is a Beta and doesn't necessarily reflect the final release code. > :) > > Thanks, > Bruce > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Spencer > Sent: November 21, 2007 10:04 AM > To: MapGuide Users Mail List > Subject: Re: [mapguide-users] Mapguide 2.0 Beta1 vs 1.2 performance > > It uses the mapdefinition that is set in the application definition, > if its a tiled map then it should be tiled in the client, otherwise it > should be a regular old map draw. > > Has anyone else got feedback on this? I saw fusion running on a > laptop yesterday, not tiled, full screen, and it was milliseconds > (<500ms) to pan/zoom (didn't look at select). > > Paul > > On 21-Nov-07, at 3:22 AM, Zac Spitzer wrote: > >> sounds like fusion ain't hitting the tile cache??? >> >> On Nov 21, 2007 6:44 PM, Bruno Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I have 2 identical vm-ware with windows 2003 running on the same >>> machine >>> I start one of the vm-ware, I do the testing, I stop it and then >>> start the >>> other to do the other bench Bench is done on the sheboygan sample >>> at 1:5000 >>> scale >>> >>> MG 2.0 with fusion Mg 2.0 without >>> fusion Mg 1.2 >>> >>> pan 29 sec 12 sec 2 sec >>> >>> select 28 sec 12 sec 2 sec >>> >>> >>> I know it's only a beta but why is that slow? >>> >>> Bruno Scott >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/Mapguide-2.0-Beta1-vs-1.2-performance-tf4848550s16610.html#a13872479 >>> Sent from the MapGuide Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mapguide-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Zac Spitzer >> http://zacster.blogspot.com/ >> +61 405 847 168 (aussie moible) >> _______________________________________________ >> mapguide-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users > > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users > _______________________________________________ > mapguide-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Mapguide-2.0-Beta1-vs-1.2-performance-tf4848550s16610.html#a13897170 Sent from the MapGuide Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mapguide-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
