<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3314" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>I'll try to answer question 1 as the others have been answered already.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>GeoMOOSE mostly is using mapserver in CGI mode so any data source supported by Mapserver should work fine. I've used SHP, WFS, OracleSpatial, PostGIS and Various OGR data sources successfully.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are also some PHP/Mapscript services that ship with GeoMOOSE which also should work fine with any Mapserver supported data source, but I haven't personally tested them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In my experience tileindexed shapes with all associated .qix files is faster than using a spatial database on the same hardware. (Although PostGIS comes very close in speed and adds a lot of flexibility in terms of types of queries that can be executed and how easy it is to update the data.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Jim</DIV>
<DIV><BR>>>> On 5/13/2008 at 8:55 AM, "Fawcett, David" <David.Fawcett@state.mn.us> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="PADDING-LEFT: 7px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f3f3f3">I would be surprised if you actually get a performance gain from using a<BR>spatial db over a well optimized (tiled, indexed, overviews) set of<BR>shape files. Using the spatial db definitely gives you some more<BR>flexibility, but I would doubt that it would out perform the shapefiles.<BR><BR><BR>I am not completely sure what you are asking in question #1, but a<BR>MapServer WMS service based on a PostGIS layer shouldn't look any<BR>different to GeoMoose than one based on shapefiles.<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: mapserver-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org<BR>[mailto:mapserver-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Nelson<BR>Soto<BR>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:56 AM<BR>To: mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org<BR>Subject: [mapserver-users] PostGIS or Mysql and GeoMoose.<BR><BR><BR>For performance reasons, I may need to convert SHP's into a spatial<BR>database. I loosely understand the concept of how this work but my<BR>questions to anyone reading are:<BR><BR>1. Has anyone looked into specifically doing the above with their<BR>working demo of GeoMoose using SHP files previously? I would hate to<BR>scrap the work I've done utilizing the excellent usability of GeoMoose<BR>in favor of utilizing a spatial database.<BR><BR>2. If users are typically accessing data but not writing it, will I<BR>realize a performance upgrade *typically*.<BR><BR>3. Is there any functionality I can expect to break and essentially head<BR>into an 'uncharted territory' if I did indeed attempt this. Can I<BR>basically expect to find in my way a high level of techincal issues (I'm<BR>very technical, but I am trying to find an efficient approach)<BR><BR>Also, here is a description of what I had attempted to do...<BR><BR>We have an OS X server which contains 2 dual core Xeons processors and<BR>4GB of ram. We are mainly a Windows house and had aquired the hardware<BR>in an anquisition and would like to utilize this hardware as best as<BR>possible. This is one of our more ambitious products we one day would<BR>like to offer our clients (we currently offer an Access product that is<BR>quite dated.).<BR><BR>Originally, I had suggested perhaps getting Parellels VM software and<BR>just bringing a copy of Windows Server 2003 to the table, but my<BR>performance almost seems better on my test machine... I'm not sure if<BR>that will apply to concurrent users which is certainly an aspect of the<BR>issue at hand, but the VM software only detects 1 core... not good. We<BR>are not looking at VMWare or anything where the license will exceed or<BR>approach the cost of a new server otherwise we will do so.<BR><BR>If I host PostgreSQL or MySQL on the server and away from the server<BR>that would host GeoMoose (a new server) I would hopefully like to<BR>utilize the Mac in this way seeing as how I can not get the performance<BR>I would like out of virtualized hosting.<BR><BR>Yes, I realize I can just set up Mapserver for OS X but, in my oppinion,<BR>it is a very laborious task and I am foreseeing I will be the one having<BR>to maintain this server and while I myself and relatively comfortable<BR>maintaining OS X and its Unix skeleton, I want to minimize the work I<BR>need to do to this server...<BR><BR>I will post this on GeoMoose mailing list as well as Mapserver as I<BR>realize there is some overlap in exactly what area's this does cover.<BR>While the context of this topic does cover my use of GeoMoose with<BR>Mapserver, I'm thinking there are users on both of these lists that have<BR>experience with the advantages vs disadvantages of Spatial DB Data vs<BR>SHP on disk.<BR><BR>At any rate, any input is appreciated.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Nelson<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mapserver-users mailing list<BR>mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org<BR><A href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver</A>-users<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mapserver-users mailing list<BR>mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org<BR><A href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver</A>-users<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>