Geographical indexing

[Thomas Flemming]

Hi Ruslan, Hi Ivan,

thanks for testing.

 > You think this is slow?
Dont worry, Valentina IS fast and I like it in the meantime very much!

I was just trying to find out whats the best for my very specific Select.
And still its too slow, but this is why these kind of things are better done 
with a rtree. I think I will go for an external rtree which gives me the 
RecIDs of the respective records.
This one looks promising:
http://trac.gispython.org/spatialindex/wiki

I also wanted to be sure, that there are no bugs in the net-wrapper.

I still have another case for the database with hundred-thousands of simple 
selects like: "Select * from tbl where a=x"
I will try this with FindValue as soon as the memoryleak is fixed.

Again thanks for your support.

Regards,
Tom


Apart from this

Ruslan Zasukhin schrieb:
> On 4/27/09 7:13 PM, "Ivan Smahin" <ivan_smahin at paradigmasoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
>> So you may see that pooled (binded) query runs faster then query which
>> is parsed each time.
>>
>> Another  conclusion  is: FindRange takes almost all the time anyway
>> (Internally that sql-conditions produce similar to yours FindRange calls). So
>> in  this  particular  case  there is no much difference between that 3
>> ways.
> 
> So it seems you have now best speed from Valentina.
> 
>>From Ivan tests we have 0.005 sec on single FindRange search for
> your 800K table.
> 
> You think this is slow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
/****************************************
**   Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Flemming
**   Software Development
**
**   Touratech AG
**   Auf dem Zimmermann 7-9
**   D-78078 Niedereschach
**
**   mail  tf at ttqv.com
**   fon   +49 (0) 7728 9279-206
**   fax   +49 (0) 7728 9279-29
**
**   http://www.ttqv.com
**   http://www.touratech.de
**
**   ... und immer dem Pfeil nach!
***************************************/