Right :-)
There are patches to apply most of the optimizations from shapefile renderer to
the normal one; the shapefile renderer is kind of on the way out as we have not
had volunteer resources to maintain it to the same standards as the normal
renderer.
If you are able to merge and modify sha
The difference could be because of the difference in ShapefileRenderer and
StreamingRenderer ? I've found the differences pretty significant during my
development. As I couldn't rationalize getting rid of more efficient code in
return for a slower renderer, I've merged the entire shapefilerenderer
There is only one renderer; the difference is probably due to the fact that a
shapefile has a spatial index?
Jody
On 11/05/2010, at 1:28 AM, GuiCheBZH wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I use KML and shapefile files, and I noticed a performance difference in the
> display of the features.
> With the same amount
Hi,
I use KML and shapefile files, and I noticed a performance difference in the
display of the features.
With the same amount of features the display of my KML layer is a few
seconds more longer than the shapefile (especially when I have more than 100
features). Is that due to the renderer type (
