[mapguide-users] perfomance test

[Traian Stanev]

Did you try an EnvelopeIntersects filter? That one is by far the most common one, rather than Intersects.
It is not surprising that SDF is fastest by far... The SDF provider does not add any intelligence to the data and stores everything in FGF format so you are basically getting back a pointer into database memory when you ask for the geometry.
 
Traian
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Haris Kurtagic [mailto:haris at sl-king.com] 
	Sent: Sun 10/29/2006 4:57 PM 
	To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [mapguide-users] perfomance test
	
	
	Hi,
	 
	After some discussion's here on this list I got interested in comparing different data source and fdo providers.
	 
	So, I have used an test application written as pure FDO client.
	I have run test again sdf, shp , 10gr2 and xe, using osgeo sdf, shp and king.oracle provider.
	Data used in test is Sheboygan_Parcels.sdf from MG unittest data.
	 
	Before I wrote the results I would like to make strong point that this could be altogether false results, I don't know anything about writing true fair tests.
	As my lawyer told me I should put in here : whatever is written is not promise, could be wrong and ..... :)
	 
	17565 features read in case 1,2, 6681 fetaures in 3,4
	results are in seconds
	 
	Test case 1: No geometry filter, Fetch all attributes 
	 
	SDF        0.937 
	
	SHP        8.531 
	10GR2    18.172
	XE            18.500
	 
	
	Test case 2: No geometry filter, Fetch Geometry and Identity
	 
	SDF        0.031 
	
	SHP        0.109 
	10GR2    1.938
	XE           1.735
	 
	Test Case 3:  Geometry Filter, Fetch all attributes
	 
	SDF        0.390
	SHP        3.391
	10GR2     6.906
	XE            6.218
	 
	
	Test Case 4:  Geometry Filter, Fetch Geometry and Identity
	 
	SDF        0.031
	SHP        0.140
	10GR2     0.891
	XE           0.797
	 
	Geometry Filter was: SHPGEOM INTERSECTS GeomFromText('POLYGON ((-87.72 44, -86 44, -86 42, -87.72 42, -87.72 44))')
	and for SDF and King.Oracle it returns same number of features 6683 which is good
	shape provider returned : 6681 ?
	 
	Original SDF file was copied to Oracle using that same tool, I call it Fdo2Sdo.
	Oracle 10GR2 is running on my same desktop in virtual machine and XE on localhost.
	 
	My Remarks:
	SDF is really fast and highly optimized for this kind of queries. Test Case 4 would be the most used case in real word app. and differences there are smallest.
	I think if you add overhead of MG and other overheads than influence would be even smaller.
	I think these tests are very unfavorable to Oracle.
	This test is run with very small data set (just 17565 polygons), I believe much larger data sets would be more preferable to Oracle.
	I also couldn't run test with ordering or grouping (sdf,shp don't support it). I run this test immediately after installing Oracle, not using any spatial index optimization
	and also provider is not highly optimized as could be.
	Here I am comparing file system to database ( it is little unusual ), It would make more sense to test against other db.
	 
	I will make this tool freely available very soon, so you will be able to run test by your self's, and also it would be nice to test other data sources and providers.
	 
	I hope that someone will find this tests useful.
	I will welcome every comment on this and if I made this tests wrongly please do tell me.
	 
	Haris
	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20061029/0be1efa6/attachment.html