Hi WanMil, yes, I got similar timing values. The testing is quite difficult. The results are almost equal when I change both versions to search only for one point of a way, so I am positive that it works, but there are still differences. I can't prove it, but I assume that both versions are wrong, because both don't find info for some points which lie inside the quadtree. I assume those are points that lie exactly on a boundary AND on a quadtree bbox. I'd try the following: if a point is within the quadtree , but no info is found, the algorithm should try again with a point next to the original. Would that be an option? Ciao, Gerd
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:20:16 +0100 From: wmgcnfg@web.de To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [Patch v3] LocationHook with new Quadtree
Now some performance facts using my standard 15 tile map:
r2168: LocationHook time: 44,8s patch: LocationHook time: 11,5s
So the time for the LocationHook is reduced to 1/4. Great!
But: The tiles differ very much between r2168 and the patched version. So there is some investigation work required to check if the patched version does what it should do.
WanMil
Hi,
now complete and based on r2167.
Gerd
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/file/n7181669/locationHook_speedup_v3.patch locationHook_speedup_v3.patch
-- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Patch-v3-LocationHook-with-new-Quadtree-tp71... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev