[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: geos-devel
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] GEOSDiffernce vs GEOSIntersection complexity?
From: "G. Allegri" <giohappy () gmail ! com>
Date: 2014-07-05 8:29:09
Message-ID: CAB4g1=ztXBW-TMqtC5Sr+ZJFOOjFMuzif2omLM3iTBQLC4pBKw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
As I supposed the problem was on QGIS side. A lot of empty
geometrycollections were returned, which made QGIS write tons of logging.
Sorry for the buzz,
giovanni
Il 04/lug/2014 17:08 "G. Allegri" <giohappy@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> I'm trying to understand why the two tools in QGIS using the respective
> functions have so much differnce in execution times.
>
> I've made the two tools as similar as possible, to have the GEOS calls as
> the only difference. The execution time differs of a copule of magnitude of
> orders. I wonder if the two overlay operations, on the GEOS side, are so
> differnt to justify such a difference on the execution time. At first sight
> they appeared to be similar from the point of view of the geometrical
> operations involved in the computation, aren't they?
>
> Giovanni
>
> --
> Giovanni Allegri
> http://about.me/giovanniallegri
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/_giohappy_
> blog: http://blog.spaziogis.it
> GEO+ geomatica in Italia http://bit.ly/GEOplus
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<p dir="ltr">As I supposed the problem was on QGIS side. A lot of empty \
geometrycollections were returned, which made QGIS write tons of logging. </p> <p \
dir="ltr">Sorry for the buzz, <br> giovanni</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Il 04/lug/2014 17:08 "G. Allegri" <<a \
href="mailto:giohappy@gmail.com">giohappy@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br \
type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"><div><div>I'm \
trying to understand why the two tools in QGIS using the respective functions have so \
much differnce in execution times.<br></div><br>I've made the two tools as \
similar as possible, to have the GEOS calls as the only difference. The execution \
time differs of a copule of magnitude of orders. I wonder if the two overlay \
operations, on the GEOS side, are so differnt to justify such a difference on the \
execution time. At first sight they appeared to be similar from the point of view of \
the geometrical operations involved in the computation, aren't they?<br>
<br></div>Giovanni<br><div><div><div><div><div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Giovanni \
Allegri<br><a href="http://about.me/giovanniallegri" \
target="_blank">http://about.me/giovanniallegri</a><div>Twitter: <a \
href="https://twitter.com/_giohappy_" \
target="_blank">https://twitter.com/_giohappy_</a></div>
<div>blog: <a href="http://blog.spaziogis.it" \
target="_blank">http://blog.spaziogis.it</a><br>GEO+ geomatica in Italia <a \
href="http://bit.ly/GEOplus" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/GEOplus</a></div></div> \
</div></div></div></div></div></div> </blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic