GD vs AGG performance...

[Jeff Hoffmann]

John Cole wrote:
> I'm just going by the tuning info reported by mapserver, but there is a
> noticeable difference between them.
> 
> Try:
> MS4 (MS4W 2.2.2) total time: 0.250s
> http://map.uai.com:28080/cgi-bin/mapserv.exe?map=/mapserver/tiger/tiger.map&mode=browse&layers=bound+hydro+landmark+roads+roads_anno+city+hydro_anno+landmark_anno+landmark_point
> 
> MS5 AGG (MS4W 2.2.6) total time: 1.266s
> http://map.uai.com:28080/cgi-bin2/mapserv.exe?map=/mapserver/tiger/tiger5.map&mode=browse&layers=bound+hydro+landmark+roads+roads_anno+city+hydro_anno+landmark_anno+landmark_point
> 
> MS5 GD (MS4W 2.2.6) total time: 0.250s
> http://map.uai.com:28080/cgi-bin2/mapserv.exe?map=/mapserver/tiger/tiger5gd.map&mode=browse&layers=bound+hydro+landmark+roads+roads_anno+city+hydro_anno+landmark_anno+landmark_point
> 
> Except for GD->AGG (and the debug difference between 4 and 5), the map files
> are identical.
> 
> (BTW, these are using the same html template, so if you navigate, you won't
> be using the same MS/renderer combo).
> 
> Is there something else that needs to be done for AGG to perform similar to
> GD?

The AGG image is about 4x the file size as the GD image, which isn't 
that surprising with all that antialiasing going on.  More of a symptom 
than anything, but not everyone is going to enjoy downloading 400k 
images, so it's something to think about if you're going to use this in 
a production site.

I think the others are right, it's the shear number of features you're 
drawing (it takes 0.5 sec just for your street layer) -- lot of 
smoothing = more time + bigger PNG.

-- 
Jeff Hoffmann
Head Plate Spinner
PropertyKey.com