4 ms·
How quick exactly? I've been testing ElasticSearch's geo location search and most queries take 50-150ms. Standard term searches and filters will take like 5ms
by heretohelp 14y ago
How quick exactly?
I've been testing ElasticSearch's geo location search and most queries take 50-150ms.
Standard term searches and filters will take like 5ms, with id GETs taking mere fractions of that still.
- whalesalad 14y agoWell, 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 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 14y agoI'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 14y agoI 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.