[fusion-users] Speed of Fusion vs MapFish (OpenLayers)
Andrew Parker
andrew at source3.com
Thu Oct 30 09:57:45 EDT 2008
Paul D:
I see what you are saying about the perceived perception. I was fooled
myself. All I had to do is look at the status bar and count how many
seconds it took to download the data. The total time was approximately
13 seconds +/- 1 second to account for map size. I will play around
with Mike Adair's suggestion:
"Unrelated to the tiling issue, you can optimize the initial loading
time of Fusion by creating a singleFile build as per
http://trac.osgeo.org/fusion/wiki/ANTBuildSystem "
to see if I can have Fusion draw the map (tiles?) while the data is
being downloaded to make the users think that the UI is fast.
~andrew.
Paul Deschamps wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <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
>
>
More information about the fusion-users
mailing list