[postgis-users] Poor Geocoder Performance

[Newcomb, Doug]

Regina,
I had heard from one of the core postgresql developers that setting shared
memory to anything above 512 MB on Windows had no further benefit.  ( i.e.,
you could set it, but it did not really give you any more memory).  Was
that in error?

Doug

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:

>  Brandon,
>
> For 64-bit 256mb is a little low.  I would up that to at least a gigabyte
> if you can spare it.  What processor are you running? and how much
> motherboard ram do you have?
>
> Most of my work (particularly on windows) is regional so never had to load
> more than 5 or so states. So it's possible that is an issue.  I think
> Darkblue_b (Brian Hamlin, wave if you are reading) has done much larger
> datasets so he might have a better idea.  Then again I think he runs on
> beefed up hardware with 16 cores and lots of RAM.
>
> If you can send me a sample address that would help.  Can send me off list
> if sensitive information.
>
> Thanks,
> Regina
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *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 11:30 PM
> *To:* PostGIS Users Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [postgis-users] Poor Geocoder Performance
>
>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>



-- 
Doug Newcomb
USFWS
Raleigh, NC
919-856-4520 ext. 14 doug_newcomb at fws.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the
official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the
Interior.   Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20141230/9279806d/attachment.html>