shptree not faster than no index

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Right, I think Frank said it pretty well. You should see a huge
difference if you do the streets layer and do the same test.

-Steve

John Bolster wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm noticing there doesn't seem to be any difference in speed between having
> *.qix files vs. not having them. I'm wondering if I'm doing this right.
>
> My data is from tiger and is in shapefiles. I'm only dealing with county
> outlines right now. They are each in a separate folder, each state's
> counties are in one state folder. There's a tileindex on them all at the
> root of the tree.
>
> I'm displaying a simple map using .../cgi-bin/mapserv?map=demo.map&mode=map.
> It's extent is set to show about 4 states of the country, showing all county
> outlines. It comes up pretty fast, so I run the page 5 times in a row and
> time that with no *.qix files, then build them (on each county file and on
> the tileindex) and repeat the test. As near as I can tell the results are
> identical.
>
> When I used a larger extent and displayed the whole country of county lines
> and did everything else the same I similarly got the same timing either way.
>
> I created the tileindex first and then did shptree afterwards. Does the
> sequence make a difference?
>
> I've tried running shptree in all these forms with no change from the
> directory where the tileindex is:
> find . -name "*.shp" -exec shptree {} \;
> find . -name "*.shp" -exec shptree {} 4 \;
> find . -name "*.shp" -exec shptree {} 6 \;
> find . -name "*.shp" -exec shptree {} 10 \;
>
> Thanks for any hints.
>
> John Bolster
>