<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [mapguide-users] Move Default Repository Location?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">I was actually wondering about that recommendation myself. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> </SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">I personally haven't seen any noticeable performance degradation when using</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">unmanaged</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">SDF files</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">, but this is subjective</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> and I generally have less than a dozen SDF files in each directory, organised by subject area</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">Zac has more experience with large data sets than I do, so I could easily be wrong on this.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> For my use case, the</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">convenience</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> of unmanaged data outweighs any measurable, but to me unnoticeable, performance degradation.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Unmanaged</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">SHP files are</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> apparently a different issue,</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">where</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">the data source schema is built per-directory rather than per-file,</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">but I don't have any experience with this.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> I think you can get around this by storing a very limited number of SHP files per directory.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">If you are really concerned about performance, the beta SQLite provider is noticeably faster than the SDF provider, though it has fewer features.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"> I</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">'ll see if I can find time to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"> <FONT FACE="Consolas">put together a current build of this for MapGuide 2.0.2.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">Jason</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Consolas">-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: JeffJensen<BR>
Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] Move Default Repository Location?</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-ca"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">I like the idea of using unmanaged data sets but I'm not sure if this will</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">slow down MapGuide. According to the web log at</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas"><A HREF="http://zacster.blogspot.com/2008/10/mapguide-performance-tips.html">http://zacster.blogspot.com/2008/10/mapguide-performance-tips.html</A> #3 Always</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-ca"><FONT FACE="Consolas">use Managed Resources, that is SDF's uploaded into the repository. </FONT></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>