[Geoserver-users] Observation - WFS 1.0.0 faster than 1.1.0?

Josh Rosenthal was asking me questions about the speeds of different types of WFS queries so we decided to test them and make a table of results.

We have GeoServer 1.6.5 on one machine and GeoServer 1.7.2 on another, both however are pointed to the same SDE database.

We tried different WFS queries (different ways of asking - URL or XML, different outputs - GML or JSON, and different versions of WFS - 1.1.0 and 1.0.0).

The dataset used is pretty heavy - 1,068,634 polygons. We threw a few shapefile tries in as well.

What jumps out for us is that WFS 1.0.0 and GeoServer 1.7.2 is a very fast combination.
WFS 1.1.0 and GeoServer 1.7.2 are not as fast. Do other people see this?
Was there a specific speedup in 1.7.2 for WFS 1.0.0?

Just wondering :slight_smile:

All the gory details if anyone’s interested:
http://lyceum.massgis.state.ma.us/wiki/doku.php?id=query_benchmarks&s=matrix

Hi Aleda,

Yeah, wfs 1.1 is quite a bit slower than wfs 1.0 due to the gml3 encoding. Benchmarks put it at about 2 times slower. You can see this presentation for the benchmarks:

http://presentations.opengeo.org/2008_FOSS4G/WebMapServerPerformance-FOSS4G2008.pdf

The speed improvements between 1.6.x and 1.7.x with wfs 1.0 are probably just due to improvements in the ArcSDE datastore.

Looking over the benchmarks you supplied some of the results puzzling. For instance the benchmarks for 1 and 2 have wfs 1.1.0 being faster... which should really never be the case.

Were these benchmarks made with a "warmed up" geoserver instance? SOmetimes times can be skewed if a request has to incur any initialization costs.

Also, trying a few of the requests it seems many of them return ServiceExceptions. I don't know if this is b/c of something being down. But we have found that during benchmarks this can be a false positive.

But great to see this sort of comparison.

-Justin

Freeman, Aleda (EEA) wrote:

Josh Rosenthal was asking me questions about the speeds of different types of WFS queries so we decided to test them and make a table of results.

We have GeoServer 1.6.5 on one machine and GeoServer 1.7.2 on another, both however are pointed to the same SDE database.

We tried different WFS queries (different ways of asking - URL or XML, different outputs - GML or JSON, and different versions of WFS - 1.1.0 and 1.0.0).

The dataset used is pretty heavy - 1,068,634 polygons. We threw a few shapefile tries in as well.

What jumps out for us is that WFS 1.0.0 and GeoServer 1.7.2 is a very fast combination.
WFS 1.1.0 and GeoServer 1.7.2 are not as fast. Do other people see this?
Was there a specific speedup in 1.7.2 for WFS 1.0.0?

Just wondering :slight_smile:

All the gory details if anyone's interested:
_http://lyceum.massgis.state.ma.us/wiki/doku.php?id=query_benchmarks&s=matrix_ <http://lyceum.massgis.state.ma.us/wiki/doku.php?id=query_benchmarks&s=matrix&gt;

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users

--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

Good point on the warming up - I should do maybe 5 request, throw away
the first 2 and average the last 3, something like that.

The maps machine hosting 1.7.2's tomcat ran out of memory yesterday
afternoon and I had to restart it. You might have tried when it was
down.

Glad to know there is an explanation for why 1.1.0 is slower than 1.0.0.