[postgis-users] Poor Geocoder Performance

[Paragon Corporation]

Brandon,
 
 
BTW: I recently uploaded PostGIS 2.1.5 on stackbuilder for 9.3 and 9.4
(still need to do for 9.2)  and I have made some fixes between 2.1.3 and
2.1.5 of the geocoder so might be worthwhile upgrading.  
 
To upgrade doing a :
 
ALTER EXTENSION postgis_tiger_geocoder UPDATE TO "2.1.5";

Couple of questions
 
1) Did you run the nation script? That is often the cause of this kind of
issue if that was not done before loading states
2) Which area are you running?
3) How many states do yo have loaded?  I can try to test out myself to see
if I can replicate the issue you are having.
4) Are you running on 32-bit windows 7 or 64-bit 
5) What is your  PostgreSQL shared_buffers set to in postgresql.conf?
6) What is the exact version of PostgreSQL 9.3 you are running:  SELECT
version();
 
mine returns: PostgreSQL 9.3.5, compiled by Visual C++ build 1600, 64-bit
 
Thanks,
Regina
PostGIS PSC member and Windows PostGIS package maintainer
http://www.postgis.us
http://postgis.net
 

  _____  

From: postgis-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:postgis-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Abear
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:21 PM
To: postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [postgis-users] Poor Geocoder Performance


I recently installed PostGIS 2.1.3 on a local PostgreSQL instance (9.3). I
imported the countrywide TIGER data set, installed the missing indexes, and
ran a vacuum analyze on everything.

The geocoder is significantly slower than what is reported in the
documentation (http://postgis.net/docs/Geocode.html). The example takes
roughly 4 seconds to return a result while the documentation shows ~61ms.
There are other addresses which take nearly a minute to geocode. I ran
through a batch of 500 addresses to test, and only a handful returned a
rating under 20. I am running on Windows 7. 

I have looked through as many similar issues online as I could find. I also
changed some of the config settings such as shared_buffer, but the
performance increase was negligible. I am out of ideas. Has anyone run into
a similar issue and found a solution?

Thank you for your time!

-- 

Brandon M. Abear 
Carthage College, 2013
Cell: (847) 848-3907
babear at carthage.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20141221/ffc7bb62/attachment.html>