Le mardi 14 février 2012 09:24:15, Rahkonen Jukka a écrit : > Rahkonen Jukka wrote: > > Even Rouault wrote: > > >> I've commited improvements in GDAL trunk for both points ( > > >> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/changeset/23944 and > > >> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/changeset/23945 ) that make the > > > > above request go > > > > >> from 1.7 sec to 0.54 sec . I don't think there's any more > > > > significant speed > > > > >> gain to expect now (at least on OGR side). > > > > > > Actually, I found a new improvement (committed in > > > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/changeset/23946) that make the > > > > query time go down > > > > > to 0.07 sec (*) ! There was a slowness when opening the > > > > layer due to the > > > > > presence of an ORDER BY clause in the DATA string, that was > > > > evaluated before > > > > > setting the spatial filter. > > > > > > (*) For comparison, I translated your database to Postgis, > > > > and set-up the > > > > > connection mapfile to use that Postgis database (still > > > > through OGR, not the > > > > > MapServer Postgis backend). The same request with OGR PG is > > > > run in 0.18 sec. > > > > Awesome! About 25 times faster in the evening than it was in > > the morning. My opinion is that because Spatialite seems to > > be, at least in this case, more that two times faster backend > > for Mapserver than PostGIS it should lead to some intensive > > and controlled testing now. > > I updated the cgi-bin directory of my MS4W 3.0.4beta1 with the mapserv.exe > and dll files taken from the brand new binaries from > http://www.gisinternals.com/sdk/ (contains Mapserver and GDAL revisions > r13144, r23972, respectively). > > As a result Mapserver is really serving me 10, or 25 or even 40 times > faster than it did before the update measured as WMS throughput > (images/minute). The times include rendering times and all the lags in the > system so the difference tells exactly how the end user feels it. Greatest > enhancement is with close zooms because then the apatial index bites > hardest. And at least with my computer Spatialite backend is clearly > faster than PostGIS with the same data and it may be even faster than > shapefiles but it is too early to say that really. But this is absolutely > something worth more testing.
I tested a bit with shapefiles with your Berlin OSM database. Even after adding spatial index (.qix) and attribute index (.idm & .idn) on fields in where clauses, it is a bit slower than spatialite. If you remove all columns from the DBF that are not necessary for the rendering, it improves things a bit again. You can also try the new special SQL command "RESIZE table_name" for shapefiles I've committed yesterday (see http://gdal.org/ogr/drv_shapefile.html ) to adjust columns to their minimum needed size. > > My test database is moderately sized and contains 100000 points, 90000 > lines and 149000 polygons from OpenStreetMap data. I will myself do next > trials with ten times bigger Spatialite database with something like > million points, lines, and polygons. We do not have much bigger tables in > our production. However, I do not believe we are changing from Oracle to > SQLite/Spatialite very rapidly in our core business :) > > -Jukka Rahkonen- > > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users _______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
