Timothy,
Splitting the data into five layers would definitely help, but first try
remove the CLASS EXPRESSION (...) and
replace it with a LAYER FILTER (...)
That should be a little faster. Also if you are always displaying all
the data, then there is not much you can do to make it faster except to
split the data into separate layers. Tileindexes improve performance
when you zoom in. also organizing you data spatially will help a lot
when you are zoomed in. you can use shp2tile to split the data up into
small spatially organized areas. But again nothing will help when you
are zoomed out other them faster CPUs and more RAM. Put all you files
into a RAM disk.
-Steve
Timothy J Nolte wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:33:10 -0600, Gregor Mosheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did you shptree all of the shapefiles, including the tileindex? That can
help a lot. There's also "sortshp" which physically sorts the file so
that seeks aren't as random. (I should add that to the page.)
I have run shptree and all the shapefiles and the tileindex. I saw sortshp
but I might need to visit that and see about how I can perhaps sort the
shapefiles. Would that be usable on the tileindex or just the individual shapes.
Beyond that, it's hard to give any specific advice without any specific
details. Are you experiencing a problem with speed, or just looking to
make fast even faster? Is a specific layer being problematic? Could you
perhaps make the expressions more efficient, maybe merge some layers
together using expressions? (you had said that you broke it into layers
by expression, thought I'd ask)
I don't think the current performance is even close to fast. I'm trying to
make what seems to be slow at least acceptable. The biggest performance hit
seems to come from the tileindex'd shapefile layer I was talking about.
Here's the layer setup that I have.
# ==============================================
# Layer: Propagations
# ==============================================
LAYER
GROUP "Propagations"
NAME "-98db to -104db"
STATUS DEFAULT
TILEINDEX "propagations/tileindex"
TILEITEM "location"
TYPE POLYGON
# --------------------------------------------------
# Class: -98db to -104db
# --------------------------------------------------
CLASS
NAME "-98db to -104db"
EXPRESSION ([LOWER] >= -104 AND [UPPER] <= -98)
MINSCALE 0
MAXSCALE 1200000
STYLE
COLOR 255 128 0
OUTLINECOLOR 255 128 0
END
END
END
LAYER
GROUP "Propagations"
NAME "-94db to -98db"
STATUS DEFAULT
TILEINDEX "propagations/tileindex"
TILEITEM "location"
TYPE POLYGON
# --------------------------------------------------
# Class: -94db to -98db
# --------------------------------------------------
CLASS
NAME "-94db to -98db"
EXPRESSION ([LOWER] >= -98 AND [UPPER] <= -94)
MINSCALE 0
MAXSCALE 1200000
STYLE
COLOR 0 0 255
OUTLINECOLOR 0 0 255
END
END
END
LAYER
GROUP "Propagations"
NAME "-89db to -94db"
STATUS DEFAULT
TILEINDEX "propagations/tileindex"
TILEITEM "location"
TYPE POLYGON
# --------------------------------------------------
# Class: -89db to -94db
# --------------------------------------------------
CLASS
NAME "-89db to -94db"
EXPRESSION ([LOWER] >= -94 AND [UPPER] <= -89)
MINSCALE 0
MAXSCALE 1200000
STYLE
COLOR 255 0 0
OUTLINECOLOR 255 0 0
END
END
END
LAYER
GROUP "Propagations"
NAME "-84db to -89db"
STATUS DEFAULT
TILEINDEX "propagations/tileindex"
TILEITEM "location"
TYPE POLYGON
# --------------------------------------------------
# Class: -84db to -89db
# --------------------------------------------------
CLASS
NAME "-84db to -89db"
EXPRESSION ([LOWER] >= -89 AND [UPPER] <= -84)
MINSCALE 0
MAXSCALE 1200000
STYLE
COLOR 255 255 0
OUTLINECOLOR 255 255 0
END
END
END
LAYER
GROUP "Propagations"
NAME "-84db to 0db"
STATUS DEFAULT
TILEINDEX "propagations/tileindex"
TILEITEM "location"
TYPE POLYGON
# --------------------------------------------------
# Class: -84db to 0db
# --------------------------------------------------
CLASS
NAME "-84db to 0db"
EXPRESSION ([LOWER] >= -84 AND [UPPER] <= 0)
MINSCALE 0
MAXSCALE 1200000
STYLE
COLOR 128 255 0
OUTLINECOLOR 128 255 0
END
END
END
Let me know if anything looks bad. Perhaps you can give me a suggestion on
how I might need to sortshp to give me the best performance with this.
