<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Many thanks to you Giuseppe for suggesting the idea and taking on the job of being a GSOC mentor. Wouldn’t have been possible without your initiative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For those who are interested in the underlying details, Han gave a presentation of his work at FOSS4G 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>You can view it here:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjgghz_EzWQ&t=698s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjgghz_EzWQ&t=698s</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regina<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> postgis-users [mailto:postgis-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Giuseppe Broccolo<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 28, 2021 5:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [postgis-users] Experiences with the new faster GiST building in PostGIS 3.2 and PostgreSQL 14?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>That's really a fantastic news! Thanks Han again for your work on this, and thanks to all the people that helped with this!<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Giuseppe. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, 20:26 Regina Obe, <<a href="mailto:lr@pcorp.us">lr@pcorp.us</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>I think Han and Kontur have some benchmarks.<br><br><a href="https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance" target="_blank">https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance</a> <br><br>In my pgTap benchmarks the index build timing is approximately 3-4 times<br>faster with osm data of Belarus and China. Han said the query performance<br>slowed a little, but I didn't see that in my pgTap tests (no really<br>noticeable difference with intersect checking), so might have been fixed by<br>Kontur in their cleanup before I ran these tests or I'm missing a test.<br><br>Here are the pgTap benchmarks based on alpha1 with PG 14.0rc1, nothing with<br>the index has changed since so should be representative. <br><br><a href="https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance/src/branch/master/pgtap/postgis/03_build_gist_index.sql" target="_blank">https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance/src/branch/master/pg<br>tap/postgis/03_build_gist_index.sql</a> <br>-- index building compare --<br>PostGIS 3.1.4<br>[08:45:51] pgtap/postgis/03_build_gist_index.sql .... <br>1..3<br>ok 1 - Index built: multipolygons<br>ok 2 - Index built: lines<br>ok 3 - Index built: points<br>ok 70742 ms ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.00 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.02 CPU)<br><br><br>PostGIS 3.2.0alpha1<br>[09:17:54] pgtap/postgis/03_build_gist_index.sql .... <br>1..3<br>ok 1 - Index built: multipolygons<br>ok 2 - Index built: lines<br>ok 3 - Index built: points<br>ok 17029 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.00 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.01 CPU)<br><br><br>-- intersect checks compare<br><a href="https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance/src/branch/master/pgtap/postgis/04_index_intersect.sql" target="_blank">https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/postgis/postgis-performance/src/branch/master/pg<br>tap/postgis/04_index_intersect.sql</a><br><br>-- POSTGIS "3.1.4"<br> [08:46:16] pgtap/postgis/04_index_intersect.sql ..... <br>1..9<br>ok 1 - Check has osm_belarus.multipolygons has gist<br>ok 2 - Check has osm_belarus.lines geom gist<br>ok 3 - Check has osm_belarus.points geom gist<br>ok 4 - intersect multipolygon check no match with index<br>ok 5 - intersect multipolygon check match with index<br>ok 6 - intersect linestring check no match with index<br>ok 7 - intersect linestring check match with index<br>ok 8 - intersect pointcheck no match with index<br>ok 9 - intersect point check match with index<br>ok 24981 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.02 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.02 CPU)<br><br>-- POSTGIS="3.2.0alpha1 3.2.0alpha1"<br>[09:18:16] pgtap/postgis/04_index_intersect.sql ..... <br>1..9<br>ok 1 - Check has osm_belarus.multipolygons has gist<br>ok 2 - Check has osm_belarus.lines geom gist<br>ok 3 - Check has osm_belarus.points geom gist<br>ok 4 - intersect multipolygon check no match with index<br>ok 5 - intersect multipolygon check match with index<br>ok 6 - intersect linestring check no match with index<br>ok 7 - intersect linestring check match with index<br>ok 8 - intersect pointcheck no match with index<br>ok 9 - intersect point check match with index<br>ok 22459 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 0.00 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.01 CPU)<br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: postgis-users [mailto:<a href="mailto:postgis-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">postgis-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a>] On<br>Behalf<br>> Of Marco Boeringa<br>> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 4:27 PM<br>> To: PostGIS Users Discussion <<a href="mailto:postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org</a>><br>> Subject: [postgis-users] Experiences with the new faster GiST building in<br>> PostGIS 3.2 and PostgreSQL 14?<br>> <br>> Hi all,<br>> <br>> Now with the betas out for PostGIS 3.2, I was wondering if anyone has some<br>> real world comparative figures to share for creating spatial indexes using<br>GiST<br>> in PostGIS 3.2 and PostgreSQL 14, versus the older GiST implementation in<br>> previous versions?<br>> <br>> Creating spatial indexes on e.g. OpenStreetMap sized datasets is still an<br>> expensive operation, and any gains in the latest releases would be highly<br>> welcome. Has someone done a comparison between releases that might give<br>> all of us that haven't yet upgraded, an idea of possible benefits of the<br>new<br>> implementation?<br>> <br>> Marco<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> postgis-users mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>postgis-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>