[fusion-users] Speed of Fusion vs MapFish (OpenLayers)

Thu Oct 30 09:24:22 EDT 2008

Andrew,

Unfortunately, in regards to Fusion / Mapserver and it's tiling capabilities
this is not something that I am aware of. not to say that it doesn't exist
but I have no experience with it. Perhaps someone on the list can weigh in
here ;)

Again as far as the "performance" issue:

All three demos should have the same performance (openlayers / mapfish /
fusion) because they are all openlayers. I think what we are seeing here is
a perceived performance issue instead of an actual one:

I believe is the fact that when fusion is requesting an image it blanks to a
white page as an image is requested this gives you a noticeable cue and or
illusion of a performance issue were as with a tiled map window,  you can
see the tiles coming in so you think it's faster.

Playing around with the map file's size attributes have no effect as they
are indeed being overridden by fusion. The map image being requested from
the mapserv binary "CGI".

As far as contributions they are indeed welcome. However lets see if this
functionality is not already scheduled to be accomplished already. Perhaps
there is a milestone for this in fusion 2.0.

Anyone what to comment here?

Cheers

Paul D.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Parker <andrew at source3.com> wrote:

> Paul D:
>
> From your post, it is my understanding that Fusion does not have the
> capability to use tiles.  Is this true?  If needed, I have a programmer that
> can dedicate his time to add tile functionality.
> I set the SingleTile tag to "true" then "false" in the MapSet (file
> ApplicationDefinition.xml) to see if there was any change on the way Fusion
> rendered the map.  I did not notice any difference.  I also played around
> with the map size in the *.map file from "800 640" to "200 100" to "2000
> 1000" to see if it made any difference (curiosity, what else can I say).  I
> did not notice any difference with respect to speed; I am sure Fusion is
> overwriting this setting.  I set the final size to "300 300" for no reason
> at all.
>
> At this time, I am most concerned with fast rendering of the USGS topo maps
> and the Geologic Map.  Google is not that important.  But, if need be, I can
> have the programmer start working on the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class; I
> will need a little help to point him in the right direction.
>
> ~andrew
>
>
> Paul Deschamps wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> hehe yes or no answer ;)
>>
>> What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the three different
>> technologies.
>>
>> Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles where your
>> fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow tiles outside of the
>> mapwindow can be cached so that they display when they are dragged into
>> position. Another consideration about tiled mapviewers is the size of each
>> tile.
>>
>> If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested at the same
>> native size of the tile on the server then the server does not need to
>> stitch tiles together.
>>
>> All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a strictly
>> fetching of the map image and presenting it on the screen the performance
>> would be identical as long as the requested image is the same size across
>> all three.
>>
>> And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm directly for
>> it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are  requesting it.  so it's an
>> extra step for every map draw.
>>
>> Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" and UI
>> controls that enable rapid application development (RAD) there's a buzz wo
>> from the past. :)
>>
>> If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that your
>> openlayers app is. You can:
>>
>> Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js and get
>> fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task)
>> Or wait for it to be added eventually ;)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Paul D.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker <andrew at source3.com<mailto:
>> andrew at source3.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast
>>    as OpenLayers.  At this time, I just need a yes or no answer.
>>
>>    For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion
>>    application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast
>>    as my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com
>>    <http://webgis.source3.com>) and my MapFish test at
>>    (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/).
>>
>>    What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the
>>    USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of
>>    about 1:100,000.  When I zoom and pan, I like how fast
>>    OpenLayers/MapFish redraws.
>>    I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a
>>    comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test.
>>
>>    The topo is from TerraServer.  The USGS data is in PostGIS.
>>
>>    thanks,
>>
>>    ~andrew
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    fusion-users mailing list
>>    fusion-users at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:fusion-users at lists.osgeo.org>
>>    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>   Paul Deschamps
>>   Applications Specialist
>>   DM Solutions Group Inc.
>>
>>   Office: (613) 565-5056 x28
>>   pdeschamps at dmsolutions.ca <mailto:pdeschamps at dmsolutions.ca>
>>   http://www.dmsolutions.ca
>>   http://research.dmsolutions.ca
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fusion-users mailing list
> fusion-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users
>

-- 
   Paul Deschamps
   Applications Specialist
   DM Solutions Group Inc.

   Office: (613) 565-5056 x28
   pdeschamps at dmsolutions.ca
   http://www.dmsolutions.ca
   http://research.dmsolutions.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fusion-users/attachments/20081030/165d1a40/attachment.html