[OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] The future of Potlatch

[Lester Caine]

SteveC wrote:
> On 2 May 2008, at 12:38, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>> Some things don't require referential integreity: selecting ways/nodes
>> within a bounding box can't hurt the referential integrity of the
>> database (so long as the code is well-maintained), so the harm in
>> converting those methods (which are probably the single most  
>> performance
>> important aspect of Potlatch?) to SQL is relatively low, so far as I  
>> can
>> tell...
> 
> One of the other reasons for moving to rails was the holy grail of  
> using postgres, and rails is theoretically db independent. Of course  
> it didn't work out that way.

Main problem here is the lack of good 'GIS' in other databases. It looks like 
I may be forced to move the gis data to a postgres database despite the fact 
that I have had all other systems running Firebird/Interbase for 15 years :(

> On the specific point, I'm all for more speedy SQL on things like that  
> so long as there is a rails logic way too - in much the same way as  
> there apparently is with the tileid stuff. Then if things change  
> significantly (like, say with changesets, rollback, spatial data  
> types) we don't have limited options.

Rails may be nice for some, but for those of us how are coding other 
applications daily without any reference to rails it is a turn off. I do not 
have the time to bother even looking which is a reason that I have not been 
able to contribute on that side. I work with raw data via SQL and will 
continue that way with 25 years of C++ applications and now increasingly PHP. 
So any extensions I come up with ( such as NLPG data interface ) will be in PHP :)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php