![\"pg_logo\"](\"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/PostgreSQL_logo.3colors.120x120.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
“A quick estimate of performance of PostGIS 2 with All tests performed on Linux 2.6.38 x86_64 The Test – TIGER 2010 California<\/strong><\/p>\n TIGER provides many possibilities for tests.. The one I chose here A random sampling of 100 EDGES in California shows the following characteristics:<\/p>\n sorted, the first dozen entries are 2, the last are the following I reasoned that although many EDGES are trivially short, there Next, pick some large PLACE geometries.. now, the test (with indexes in place I trust)<\/p>\n ———- Results:<\/strong><\/p>\n place_name,trunk_cnt,trunk_time,dblbox_cnt,dblbox_time preliminary conclusions<\/em><\/p>\n the search times were almost the same for each of the 4 cases search times were fast enough such that I believe indexes are being used the result counts for both trunk and dblbox match, as a sanity check<\/p>\n performance hit is around 4% in each case<\/p>\n =======<\/p>\n caveat: I could have misjudged and chosen a poor test case for some “A quick estimate of performance of PostGIS 2 with geometry bounding boxes as doubles vs as floats” All tests performed on Linux 2.6.38 x86_64 PostgreSQL 9.0.5 shared_buffers = 2400MB temp_buffers = 64MB work_mem = 512MB maintenance_work_mem = 200MB The Test – TIGER 2010 California TIGER provides many possibilities for tests.. The one I chose here […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/857"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=857"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/857\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":867,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/857\/revisions\/867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.light42.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n geometry bounding boxes as doubles vs as floats”<\/em><\/p>\n
\nPostgreSQL 9.0.5
\n shared_buffers = 2400MB
\n temp_buffers = 64MB
\n work_mem = 512MB
\n maintenance_work_mem = 200MB<\/p>\n
\nuses PLACE (a large’ish MULTIPOLY<\/strong>) and EDGE (MULTILINE<\/strong>)<\/p>\nselect st_npoints(the_geom) from ca_edges order by random() limit 100;<\/code>
\n——————————-
\nmin,median,mean,max stdev
\n2, 5.15, 16.333, 212 34.23<\/p>\n
\n[ … 36,37,43,44,51,57,58,68,68,79,206,206,212]<\/p>\n
\nexist substantial numbers of non-trivial EDGES, so they would be ok for a test.<\/p>\n
\nFrom the Dozen largest (by area) PLACE rows, I picked 4 well-known cities<\/p>\n
\nselect count(*) from ca_edges where st_intersects( the_geom,
\n(select st_envelope(the_geom) from ca_place where name = 'City_Name') );<\/code>
\n———-<\/p>\n
\nBakersfield,39691,24.230,39691,25.275
\nFresno,36527,24.217,36527,25.194
\nOakland,44404,24.395,44404,25.680
\nLancaster,16566,23.983,16566,25.194<\/p>\n
\nand I did not detect change with multiple runs of the same query
\n(though I could have tested that more, too)<\/p>\n
\n(I did not check all indexes carefully, but the database setup was the same
\nfor both test contexts, so if they missed something, both tests likely missed
\nin the same way)<\/p>\n
\nobscure-to-me reason.. hopefully, this is useful and informative<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"