Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
whalesalad 598 days ago | link | parent

Well, compared to your numbers, I guess not that quick. Django is responding in 0.28 seconds. That is going over wifi to my server in a closet though. And i'm downstairs kinda far from the router.

Screenshot: http://wsld.me/J5zu

If I hit it repeatedly for a while it comes back in as quick as 0.14, but usually not that fast.

ping to server:

    michael at Achilles in ~
    ○ ping -c 5 apollo 
    PING apollo (192.168.1.130): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 192.168.1.130: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=9.497 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.1.130: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=83.113 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.1.130: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=7.335 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.1.130: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=6.998 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.1.130: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=6.393 ms

    --- apollo ping statistics ---
    5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 6.393/22.667/83.113/30.241 ms


heretohelp 598 days ago | link

I'd call it good enough, I was of the understanding that SQL database geo plugins were usually miserable. I'll add a mental exception for Postgres.

-----

Argorak 598 days ago | link

I used PostGIS in proper GIS scenarios and it was faring quite well. The advantage of PostGIS is that it supports all the index types you need directly. And been around awhile, in a good sense.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: