"Jose" <jmalv04@gmail.com> wrote
Sorry, I forgot to mention that your query was 6 seconds on my x86_64 3Gb box
Is this a latest one -- I expect it to take a little longer now... Also I am curious how long it took to re-run the query after the update.
I didn't want to compare any results yet because geographical queries really need special auxiliary coding, e.g. like building a cities worldmap before actually running the queries.
Right, so I am afraid we may fall into the trap of comparing the cleverness of hand-coded solutions rather than the libraries' capabilities.
So once I have your updated code I will run both on identical setting.
Calum's is the code author so I am sure he'll post that but I propose the solutions are coded separately so that the best ideas come up and then after the benchmark the code is distributed for further analysis, otherwise we have some bias in the benchmark. I just wanted to bring up the worldmap optimization so that the relational benchmarks can be compared on equal terms
I will email you directly some of my own optimization ideas as I have not yet looked in detail at calum's code
The reason I wanted to take a look at it is that I want to see if it looks more like a library-based solution or a hand-coded solution. Also, I want to try more relational-based optimizations before starting to apply other tricks. But, again, could you see how long the re-run (after update) takes? Thanks, Arkadiy