[postgis-users] Poor Geocoder Performance

[Brandon Abear]

Hi Regina,

I will check out the update that you have uploaded.

To answer your questions:
1) Yep, I ran the nation script before running the subsequent state scripts.
2) The test batch includes addresses in all of the continental states. If I
am able to get the geocoder to run quickly enough, I will be geocoding
millions of addresses.
3) I have all states loaded.
4) Windows 7 64-bit
5) PostgreSQL shared_buffer is 256mb
6) I am running the same version as you.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>



-- 
*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/20141221/3e88209a/attachment.html>