[geos-devel] [Fwd: [Boost-users] [boost] Formal Review: Boost.Polygon starts today August 24, 2009]

[Martin Davis]

Hmmm... GEOS comes off rather badly compared to GGL.  Is that because of 
memory access issues?  Or perhaps the fact that less code is inlined?

Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> FWIW, there will be a second Boost library review soon: GGL (Generic
> Geometry Library, here: http://trac.osgeo.org/ggl/), which is yet another
> project currently hosted by OSGEO. GGL is much larger than BP, more similar
> to GEOS (full SFS geometry, etc.). The comparing measurement I saw tend to
> show GGL being even than everything else, for instance:
>
> 100 points per ellipse, with area check:
> -> geos:     resulting area: 69.68616316800, time:  13.641 seconds
> -> ggl:      resulting area: 69.68616316800, time:   1.156 seconds
> -> gpc:      resulting area: 69.68616316800, time:   9.297 seconds
> -> polygon:  resulting area: 69.68616202400, time: 108.563 seconds
> -> terralib: resulting area: 69.68616316800, time:   4.672 seconds
>
> These results are colored by the check of the area. Checking without gives:
>
> 100 points per ellipse:
> -> geos time:     13.437 seconds
> -> ggl time:       1.140 seconds
> -> gpc time:       9.047 seconds
> -> polygon time:  38.688 seconds
> -> terralib time:  4.609 seconds
>
>   

-- 
Martin Davis
Senior Technical Architect
Refractions Research, Inc.
(250) 383-3022