Speed of Fusion vs MapFish (OpenLayers)
|
|
Andrew Parker-3
|
I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast as
OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast as my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com) and my MapFish test at (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of about 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast OpenLayers/MapFish redraws. I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. thanks, ~andrew _______________________________________________ fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
|
A complete guess:
Fusion uses the default ratio 1.5, meaning that the image downloaded/rendered is twice the size. If you set the ratio to 1.0 in should cut time in half (almost). I don't know where to set this with Fusion. Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S Andrew Parker skrev: > I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast as > OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. > > For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion > application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast as > my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com) and my > MapFish test at (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). > > What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the USGS > wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of about > 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast OpenLayers/MapFish > redraws. > I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a > comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. > > The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. > > thanks, > > ~andrew > _______________________________________________ > fusion-users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Parker-3
|
Interesting, this gives me a starting point to try to speed up Fusion.
~andrew. Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S wrote: > A complete guess: > Fusion uses the default ratio 1.5, meaning that the > image downloaded/rendered is twice the size. > > If you set the ratio to 1.0 in should cut time in half (almost). > I don't know where to set this with Fusion. > > Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S > > > > Andrew Parker skrev: >> I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast as >> OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. >> >> For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion >> application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast as >> my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com) and my >> MapFish test at (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). >> >> What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the USGS >> wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of about >> 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast OpenLayers/MapFish >> redraws. >> I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a >> comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. >> >> The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. >> >> thanks, >> >> ~andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> fusion-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
Paul Deschamps
|
In reply to this post
by Andrew Parker-3
Hi Andrew,
hehe yes or no answer ;) What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the three different technologies. Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles where your fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow tiles outside of the mapwindow can be cached so that they display when they are dragged into position. Another consideration about tiled mapviewers is the size of each tile. If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested at the same native size of the tile on the server then the server does not need to stitch tiles together. All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a strictly fetching of the map image and presenting it on the screen the performance would be identical as long as the requested image is the same size across all three. And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm directly for it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are requesting it. so it's an extra step for every map draw. Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" and UI controls that enable rapid application development (RAD) there's a buzz wo from the past. :) If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that your openlayers app is. You can: Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js and get fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task) Or wait for it to be added eventually ;) Cheers Paul D. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email]> wrote: I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast as OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. -- Paul Deschamps Applications Specialist DM Solutions Group Inc. Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 [hidden email] http://www.dmsolutions.ca http://research.dmsolutions.ca _______________________________________________ fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Parker-3
|
Paul D:
From your post, it is my understanding that Fusion does not have the capability to use tiles. Is this true? If needed, I have a programmer that can dedicate his time to add tile functionality. I set the SingleTile tag to "true" then "false" in the MapSet (file ApplicationDefinition.xml) to see if there was any change on the way Fusion rendered the map. I did not notice any difference. I also played around with the map size in the *.map file from "800 640" to "200 100" to "2000 1000" to see if it made any difference (curiosity, what else can I say). I did not notice any difference with respect to speed; I am sure Fusion is overwriting this setting. I set the final size to "300 300" for no reason at all. At this time, I am most concerned with fast rendering of the USGS topo maps and the Geologic Map. Google is not that important. But, if need be, I can have the programmer start working on the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class; I will need a little help to point him in the right direction. ~andrew Paul Deschamps wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > hehe yes or no answer ;) > > What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the three > different technologies. > > Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles where > your fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow tiles outside of > the mapwindow can be cached so that they display when they are dragged > into position. Another consideration about tiled mapviewers is the > size of each tile. > > If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested at the > same native size of the tile on the server then the server does not > need to stitch tiles together. > > All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a strictly > fetching of the map image and presenting it on the screen the > performance would be identical as long as the requested image is the > same size across all three. > > And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm directly > for it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are requesting it. so > it's an extra step for every map draw. > > Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" and UI > controls that enable rapid application development (RAD) there's a > buzz wo from the past. :) > > If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that your > openlayers app is. You can: > > Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js and get > fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task) > Or wait for it to be added eventually ;) > > Cheers > > Paul D. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast > as OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. > > For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion > application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast > as my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com > <http://webgis.source3.com>) and my MapFish test at > (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). > > What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the > USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of > about 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast > OpenLayers/MapFish redraws. > I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a > comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. > > The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. > > thanks, > > ~andrew > _______________________________________________ > fusion-users mailing list > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users > > > > > -- > Paul Deschamps > Applications Specialist > DM Solutions Group Inc. > > Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > http://www.dmsolutions.ca > http://research.dmsolutions.ca > > fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
Mike Adair
|
Andrew,
Unrelated to the tiling issue, you can optimize the initial loading time of Fusion by creating a singleFile build as per http://trac.osgeo.org/fusion/wiki/ANTBuildSystem Mike Andrew Parker wrote: > Paul D: > > From your post, it is my understanding that Fusion does not have the > capability to use tiles. Is this true? If needed, I have a > programmer that can dedicate his time to add tile functionality. > I set the SingleTile tag to "true" then "false" in the MapSet (file > ApplicationDefinition.xml) to see if there was any change on the way > Fusion rendered the map. I did not notice any difference. I also > played around with the map size in the *.map file from "800 640" to > "200 100" to "2000 1000" to see if it made any difference (curiosity, > what else can I say). I did not notice any difference with respect to > speed; I am sure Fusion is overwriting this setting. I set the final > size to "300 300" for no reason at all. > > At this time, I am most concerned with fast rendering of the USGS topo > maps and the Geologic Map. Google is not that important. But, if > need be, I can have the programmer start working on the > OpenLayers.Layers.Google class; I will need a little help to point him > in the right direction. > > ~andrew > > > Paul Deschamps wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> hehe yes or no answer ;) >> >> What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the three >> different technologies. >> >> Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles where >> your fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow tiles outside of >> the mapwindow can be cached so that they display when they are >> dragged into position. Another consideration about tiled mapviewers >> is the size of each tile. >> >> If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested at the >> same native size of the tile on the server then the server does not >> need to stitch tiles together. >> >> All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a strictly >> fetching of the map image and presenting it on the screen the >> performance would be identical as long as the requested image is the >> same size across all three. >> >> And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm >> directly for it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are >> requesting it. so it's an extra step for every map draw. >> >> Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" and UI >> controls that enable rapid application development (RAD) there's a >> buzz wo from the past. :) >> >> If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that your >> openlayers app is. You can: >> >> Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js and get >> fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task) >> Or wait for it to be added eventually ;) >> >> Cheers >> >> Paul D. >> >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast >> as OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. >> >> For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion >> application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map as fast >> as my current OpenLayers application (http//:webgis.source3.com >> <http://webgis.source3.com>) and my MapFish test at >> (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). >> >> What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the >> USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of >> about 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast >> OpenLayers/MapFish redraws. >> I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a >> comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. >> >> The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. >> >> thanks, >> >> ~andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> fusion-users mailing list >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Deschamps >> Applications Specialist >> DM Solutions Group Inc. >> >> Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> http://www.dmsolutions.ca >> http://research.dmsolutions.ca >> > _______________________________________________ > fusion-users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users > -- Michael Adair Senior Software Architect DM Solutions Group Inc. Office: (613) 565-5056 x26 [hidden email] http://www.dmsolutions.ca http://research.dmsolutions.ca _______________________________________________ fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Deschamps
|
In reply to this post
by Andrew Parker-3
Andrew,
Unfortunately, in regards to Fusion / Mapserver and it's tiling capabilities this is not something that I am aware of. not to say that it doesn't exist but I have no experience with it. Perhaps someone on the list can weigh in here ;) Again as far as the "performance" issue: All three demos should have the same performance (openlayers / mapfish / fusion) because they are all openlayers. I think what we are seeing here is a perceived performance issue instead of an actual one: I believe is the fact that when fusion is requesting an image it blanks to a white page as an image is requested this gives you a noticeable cue and or illusion of a performance issue were as with a tiled map window, you can see the tiles coming in so you think it's faster. Playing around with the map file's size attributes have no effect as they are indeed being overridden by fusion. The map image being requested from the mapserv binary "CGI". As far as contributions they are indeed welcome. However lets see if this functionality is not already scheduled to be accomplished already. Perhaps there is a milestone for this in fusion 2.0. Anyone what to comment here? Cheers Paul D. On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email]> wrote: Paul D: -- Paul Deschamps Applications Specialist DM Solutions Group Inc. Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 [hidden email] http://www.dmsolutions.ca http://research.dmsolutions.ca _______________________________________________ fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Parker-3
|
Paul D:
I see what you are saying about the perceived perception. I was fooled myself. All I had to do is look at the status bar and count how many seconds it took to download the data. The total time was approximately 13 seconds +/- 1 second to account for map size. I will play around with Mike Adair's suggestion: "Unrelated to the tiling issue, you can optimize the initial loading time of Fusion by creating a singleFile build as per http://trac.osgeo.org/fusion/wiki/ANTBuildSystem " to see if I can have Fusion draw the map (tiles?) while the data is being downloaded to make the users think that the UI is fast. ~andrew. Paul Deschamps wrote: > Andrew, > > Unfortunately, in regards to Fusion / Mapserver and it's tiling > capabilities this is not something that I am aware of. not to say that > it doesn't exist but I have no experience with it. Perhaps someone on > the list can weigh in here ;) > > Again as far as the "performance" issue: > > All three demos should have the same performance (openlayers / mapfish > / fusion) because they are all openlayers. I think what we are seeing > here is a perceived performance issue instead of an actual one: > > I believe is the fact that when fusion is requesting an image it > blanks to a white page as an image is requested this gives you a > noticeable cue and or illusion of a performance issue were as with a > tiled map window, you can see the tiles coming in so you think it's > faster. > > Playing around with the map file's size attributes have no effect as > they are indeed being overridden by fusion. The map image being > requested from the mapserv binary "CGI". > > As far as contributions they are indeed welcome. However lets see if > this functionality is not already scheduled to be accomplished > already. Perhaps there is a milestone for this in fusion 2.0. > > Anyone what to comment here? > > Cheers > > Paul D. > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Paul D: > > From your post, it is my understanding that Fusion does not have > the capability to use tiles. Is this true? If needed, I have a > programmer that can dedicate his time to add tile functionality. > I set the SingleTile tag to "true" then "false" in the MapSet > (file ApplicationDefinition.xml) to see if there was any change on > the way Fusion rendered the map. I did not notice any difference. > I also played around with the map size in the *.map file from > "800 640" to "200 100" to "2000 1000" to see if it made any > difference (curiosity, what else can I say). I did not notice any > difference with respect to speed; I am sure Fusion is overwriting > this setting. I set the final size to "300 300" for no reason at all. > > At this time, I am most concerned with fast rendering of the USGS > topo maps and the Geologic Map. Google is not that important. > But, if need be, I can have the programmer start working on the > OpenLayers.Layers.Google class; I will need a little help to point > him in the right direction. > > ~andrew > > > Paul Deschamps wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > hehe yes or no answer ;) > > What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the > three different technologies. > > Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles > where your fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow > tiles outside of the mapwindow can be cached so that they > display when they are dragged into position. Another > consideration about tiled mapviewers is the size of each tile. > > If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested > at the same native size of the tile on the server then the > server does not need to stitch tiles together. > > All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a > strictly fetching of the map image and presenting it on the > screen the performance would be identical as long as the > requested image is the same size across all three. > > And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm > directly for it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are > requesting it. so it's an extra step for every map draw. > > Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" > and UI controls that enable rapid application development > (RAD) there's a buzz wo from the past. :) > > If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that > your openlayers app is. You can: > > Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js > and get fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task) > Or wait for it to be added eventually ;) > > Cheers > > Paul D. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > > I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps > as fast > as OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer. > > For example, it would be great if I could make my current > Fusion > application (http://216.93.173.156/testing/) draw the map > as fast > as my current OpenLayers application > (http//:webgis.source3.com <http://webgis.source3.com> > <http://webgis.source3.com>) and my MapFish test at > (http://http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/). > > What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the > USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a > scale of > about 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast > OpenLayers/MapFish redraws. > I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a > comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test. > > The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS. > > thanks, > > ~andrew > _______________________________________________ > fusion-users mailing list > [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users > > > > > -- > Paul Deschamps > Applications Specialist > DM Solutions Group Inc. > > Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > http://www.dmsolutions.ca > http://research.dmsolutions.ca > > > _______________________________________________ > fusion-users mailing list > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users > > > > > -- > Paul Deschamps > Applications Specialist > DM Solutions Group Inc. > > Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > http://www.dmsolutions.ca > http://research.dmsolutions.ca > > fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Deschamps
|
This single file build process will basically get the application into a initialized / loaded state much quicker. but have no real affect on the time of which the map window is refreshed / paned / zoomed or first loaded.
Cheers Paul D On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Parker <[hidden email]> wrote: Paul D: -- Paul Deschamps Applications Specialist DM Solutions Group Inc. Office: (613) 565-5056 x28 [hidden email] http://www.dmsolutions.ca http://research.dmsolutions.ca _______________________________________________ fusion-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
