[mapguide-users] perfomance test

[Traian Stanev]

OK. All I was saying is that EnvelopeIntersects does not incur a secondary geometry filter processing for each feature in the SDF provider, which Intersects does. I would have expected a significant difference between Intersects and EnvelopeIntersects for the SDF provider. Also, EnvelopeIntersects is what MapGuide uses to render every map.
 
About the FGF thing -- yes SDF has the luxury of not having to convert geometry formats, so in the limit, it would be faster than a provider that converts, but (in my opinion) there are many other factors which have a much bigger impact on performance, than a simple geometry conversion loop.
 
Also, another question... How do you do the timing? If you use the Windows clock, it has a resolution of 16 milliseconds, which makes the accuracy of the 0.031 sec measurement for SDF very doubtful to me, unless you repeated the operation 100 times and then took the total time and divided by 100, for example.
 
Traian

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Haris Kurtagic [mailto:haris at sl-king.com] 
	Sent: Sun 10/29/2006 5:18 PM 
	To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] perfomance test
	
	
	Yes, I've  tried envelope but I wanted to try more complicated query (to use primary and secondary filter in Oracle) and also couldn't see huge difference on this small set.
	 
	If I understood you correctly you mean sdf provider is not loosing time in converting to FGF format ?
	I agree on that but that is format use in MG, so that is one + for sdf :)
	 
	Haris

  _____  

	From: Traian Stanev [mailto:traian.stanev at autodesk.com] 
	Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:13 PM
	To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org; users at mapguide.osgeo.org
	Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] perfomance test
	
	
	 
	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/20061029/02ac8fe8/attachment.html