jburgess777 at googlemail.com
Tue May 13 00:52:32 BST 2008
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 00:37 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <44d06e000805121429w664d2588ofb745c736b5e27a9 at mail.gmail.com>
> "Alex Wilson" <alex_wilson at pobox.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't plan to touch the back-end DB (is it MySQL atm?) - just write a
> > for-comparison C++ API - and if it's not faster, or it's considerably more
> > obfuscated and harder to maintain, then it can be left to decompose quietly,
> > unused... ;-)
> It is MySQL yes.
> > I think the task is something sufficiently straightforward that the C++ can
> > be made very user-friendly and pretty easy to maintain. I think we'll have a
> > look at developing the Apache module and you can all see what you think
> > if/when it's done...
> I would certainly hope to see well structured and easy to maintain code ;-)
> It's not all about straight line speed either, it's also about things
> like memory consumption as the current API is absolutely horrible in
> that regard which severely limits the number of requests we can process
> at a time.
> So think about how you can generate the results for a map call and
> return them to a client while holding as little state as possible in
> memory if you want to do a good job.
I was wondering whether the gpx_import code would be a valid target for
improvement? I know people complain fairly often that the importer is
backlogged. The code itself seems to be fairly straight forward and has
well defined input & outputs.
More information about the dev