On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Jeff Harrison wrote:
> Interoperability Testing has demonstrated the network performance of the > specifications, so let's get beyond that. Oh, somebody will probably say > that WFS doesn't work and that GML is too "bulky" to "perform" well-- > Sorry, that's not true either, it's works just fine for me, and it's > getting even better with compression, etc.
I'm very curious about this. How can geometries stored as plain text strings possibly be faster than the same objects stored as binary data? Even with compression, you have the cost of decompressing on top of string parsing. Or is the point more that GML is "plenty fast enough" and the simplicity and interoperability of plain text is well worth the small performance hit?
- Bill Thoen
_______________________________________________ gislist mailing list gislist@lists.geocomm.com http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________ This list is brought to you by The GeoCommunity http://www.geocomm.com/
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids http://www.geobids.com
|