[fdo-internals] Motion: Vote on FDO RFC 38 - SHP multi-polygons

[Jackie Ng]

+1 Jackie


Orest Halustchak wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There were no further comments on this RFC:
> http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc38 - Multi-polygon support for SHP.
> 
> I would like to motion a vote to accept this RFC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Orest.
> 
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Orest
> Halustchak
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:50 PM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: [fdo-internals] Back to FDO RFC 38 - SHP multi-polygons
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Regarding: http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc38 - Multi-polygon support
> for SHP.
> 
> 
> In our last discussions on this RFC, there was concern about performance
> impact.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan has done some prototype performance testing to determine the impact of
> this proposed change. He used some datasets that included complex
> multi-polygons including Norway data and Australia data that had detailed
> multi-polygons for all the islands (100's of loops for each feature).
> Following are some statistics with before and after timings. With each of
> these datasets, the time to render on the screen was much longer than
> these load times and there is no difference that an end user would see in
> these cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Australia: 9 multipolygon features with 3 of them having between 800 and
> 900 polygon loops each, others averaging about 100 loops each.
> 
>       .015 seconds to .125 seconds
> 
> Europe: 54 multipolygon features with Norway having 862 loops, with others
> of 653, 509, 359 loops, and the rest averaging about 100 loops each.
> 
>       .016 seconds to .17 seconds
> 
> Queensland parcels: 2,000,000 polygons
> 
>       Unchanged at 1.6 seconds
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes it takes longer to process, but the overall timings are still
> sub-second for the complex cases. There is also no impact on cases of
> regular polygons.
> 
> 
> Dan will be back from his vacation soon and will be able to do the
> implementation. So, I'd like to get to a vote on this if nobody has
> objections.
> 
> Thanks,
> Orest.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Motion-Vote-on-FDO-RFC-38-SHP-multi-polygons-tp3600390p3603435.html
Sent from the FDO Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.