[OSM-talk] Server slowness

[Nick Hill]

SteveC wrote:
> * @ 15/01/07 11:45:42 AM nick at nickhill.co.uk wrote:
>> I echo Richard's post.
>>
>> But I would add the rider that the current OSM set-up is by no means optimised. 
>> I estimate organising the data on disc according to geographic location, and 
>> partitioning the database can improve node look-ups by an order of magnitude. 
>> Therefore, a direct comparison should implement partitioning.
>>
>> Notwithstanding, I fully concur with previous posts that if OSM data model were 
>> shared with with the rest of the open GIS community, many benefits would be 
>> derived.
> 
> What benefits?

Standardisation brings a whole load of benefits. Not just easier use of data, 
but shared fruits of development effort.

Without specific clear evidence to the contrary, I presume standardisation, 
particularly interface standardisation, is of public good.

Imagine if every power utility used different voltages and frequencies. If each 
electrical appliance was supplied with a unique mains plug. Imagine if every 
Ethernet router manufacturer used a slightly different flavour of Ethernet. If 
the Internet were based on 10 incompatible versions of TCP which require a 
proprietary bridge to talk between the protocol versions.

A couple of weeks ago, I experienced the problems with lack of standardisation 
on cars. There can only be a need for three different configurations of rear 
brake drums based on mass of vehicle. My vehicle has one of 7 different 
arrangements of rear brake shoes/adjuster/cylinder for that one model of 
vehicle. Each car parts manufacturer has their own arrangement incompatible with 
the rest. No part numbers on the parts to tell you who made them or what type 
they are. It was very clear to me that many mechanics make do with slightly 
incompatible parts, leading to possible premature failure or even insidious 
brake dragging. Car parts makers could have standardised over the last 70 years, 
which would have made repairs easier, cheaper and safer.

This does not mean I think the current version of postGIS is necessarily the way 
to go. However, I hope everyone is willing to be convinced if clear, unequivocal 
evidence is presented that postGIS can provide the performance, functionality 
and scalability we need.