[mapguide-users] perfomance test

Sun Oct 29 17:51:20 EST 2006

Yes run 16 and divide 16. ( I am checking with more )
and yes, I go trough feature reader and read every data value for every
row.

Haris

________________________________

From: Traian Stanev [mailto:traian.stanev at autodesk.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:48 PM
To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org; users at mapguide.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] perfomance test

If you are looping 16 times and then dividing the total time by 16, then
it's probably fine. Your timing includes both executing the select
command and then reading through the resulting feature reader?

Traian

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Haris Kurtagic [mailto:haris at sl-king.com] 
	Sent: Sun 10/29/2006 5:40 PM 
	To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] perfomance test

	Thank you for all your suggestions. This is my first test so :)

	Yes, I also think that other factors have more influence.
	I' ve used clock() on windows and I ran it in loop of 16.

	I suppose I should take some much larger data set.

	Thanks,
	Haris

________________________________

	From: Traian Stanev [mailto:traian.stanev at autodesk.com] 
	Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:32 PM
	To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org; users at mapguide.osgeo.org
	Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] perfomance test

	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/20061029/93b37b8c/attachment.html