<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [mapguide-users] King.Oracle 0.3.3</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Same opinion, and in most cases the difference between
Oracle and SDF was not large enough to require a filesystem data source (unless
you had other reasons, like not wanting to fall into the megabuck
Enterprise+Spatial trap)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I'd expect the same results with MGOS, but with one
exception. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>SDF+ only appears to support indices on one "identity"
column, but it allows you to store your full attribution. If you are doing
any kind of attribute query against other columns, I believe that a properly
indexed Oracle source will have a huge performance
advantage.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=182321015-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Jason</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Andy Morsell
[mailto:amorsell@spatialgis.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 24, 2006
20:55<BR><B>To:</B> users@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[mapguide-users] King.Oracle 0.3.3<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=781404803-25102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I agree that with MapGuide 6.5, Oracle Spatial
is nearly as fast as SDF. Nothing beats SDF, however. It's hard
to say with the current versions of MGOS and the King provider since I doubt
that anyone has bench marked it against SDF+ to date, but I would ultimately
expect similar performance. The same goes for the Autodesk Oracle Spatial
FDO provider: I expect that the improvements that Autodesk are making to it will
bring it more back in line with performance of MapGuide 6.5. I saw a beta
version of the patched provider about a month ago, and my tests indicated that
it will be much, much better than the current version.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>