Nic Roets wrote: > > So a good data structure that can answer most map (bbox) > calls with a single disk seek is what is needed. (Not a debate on the > best programming language). > For simple map calls there is TRAPI[1]. As far as I know, TRAPI performs much better on map (bbox) queries than either the main-API, XAPI or ROMA (on equivalent hardware). Rather than using a database, I think it used a pre-tiled file structure, so that it simple needs to peace together a bunch of tiles, rather than do a full search in a db, which massively reduced the disk seeks necessary.
There is also an instance running, currently powered by a set of three servers [2] that handles all the map requests for t@h (which are a lot of large and demanding map requests). I don't think XAPI is all that much better suited for map requests than the main API and imho it was rather unfortunate that the mantra has been for people getting banned from the main API for scraping to use XAPI. This just bogged down XAPI for people who actually needed its extra capabilities. Kai [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trapi [2] http://api1.osm.absolight.net/ -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-isn-t-any-XAPI-server-available-tp6040442p6043479.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
