[geos-devel] Benchmark between various geometry libraries
pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
Wed Nov 18 12:18:58 EST 2009
I see that Matz has already been looking at a GGL binding for PostGIS,
and I think when the 2.0 cycle begins I will also examine the
possibility. Then we can see where the rubber meets the road. Even
where GGL has a strong base-case speed, thinks like PreparedGeometry
will probably make GEOS faster for common predicate use cases (not
that GGL can't steal that idea too, eventually).
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Martin Davis <mbdavis at refractions.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure that anything "went wrong" with the tests. The results may be
> due to fundamental design differences between GGL and GEOS. These include:
> - GEOS uses a less efficient memory handling strategy, primarily due to the
> goal of tracking JTS closely (and also due to the substantial brainpower
> required to grok C++ template programming)
> - GEOS focuses heavily on providing robustness and ability to handle a wide
> variety of real-world geometry correctly. This requires using some
> algorithms and extra checking which have an impact on performance
> The robustness question I think is a key one. In order for a library to be
> viable in an uncontrolled production setting such as PostGIS, it needs to be
> highly robust. I think this needs to be considered of equal importance to
> performance for these kinds of uses.
> Maxime van Noppen wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> A geometry library is currently being reviewed by the Boost project (GGL
>> - Generic Geometry Library) and they did some benchmarks available
>> Depending on the situations geos performs well or quite bad.
>> It could be interesting to investigate what went wrong with those tests.
>>  http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/11/53451.php
> Martin Davis
> Senior Technical Architect
> Refractions Research, Inc.
> (250) 383-3022
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the geos-devel