Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

jratike80

Hi,

 

One thing that came late into my mind: it will be rather easy to write FILTER params which are very heavy to execute in the database. Same applies to SLD, see https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4703, and because of that server admin can deny the use of SLD by setting ows_sld_enabled metadata into false.

 

Unlike  %variable% it is not easy to validate OGC filters, but should we have at least a method for disabling it with some metadata like “wms_filter_enabled”

 

-Jukka Rahkonen-

 

Lähettäjä: mapserver-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] Puolesta Rahkonen Jukka (MML)
Lähetetty: 16. elokuuta 2017 7:12
Vastaanottaja: Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <[hidden email]>; Daniel Morissette <[hidden email]>; 'MapServer Dev List' <[hidden email]>
Aihe: Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

 

+1

-Jukka Rahkonen-


Lähettäjä: [hidden email]
Lähetetty: ‎16.‎8.‎2017 3:01
Vastaanottaja: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Aihe: Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

+1


From: mapserver-dev <[hidden email]> on behalf of Daniel Morissette <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:41:33 PM
To: 'MapServer Dev List'
Subject: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

 

We had the discussion on RFC 118 back in February and the code in my
fork (https://github.com/dmorissette/mapserver/tree/rfc118-filter) has
been in use in a few apps since, but we haven't voted to include it
officially in 7.2 yet.

So unless there is more feedback, I'll move to adopt MS RFC 118 -
Support Vendor-Specific OGC FILTER parameter in WMS requests:

http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-118.html

And I start with my +1

Daniel
--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev


_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Daniel Morissette
Hi Jukka,

That's a very good question and I thought the same as you at first, but
when I think about it some more I'm not sure if the risk is real or not:
since the FILTER is combined with whatever pre-existing filter was
already in the layer, it can only reduce the number of features
returned/drawn, so it can hardly add much load, unless the number of
features returned/drawn was already excessively high.

I didn't research this in details so I may be missing something obvious.
What do you think?

Daniel

On 2017-08-16 5:12 AM, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One thing that came late into my mind: it will be rather easy to write
> FILTER params which are very heavy to execute in the database. Same
> applies to SLD, see https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4703,
> and because of that server admin can deny the use of SLD by setting
> ows_sld_enabled metadata into false.
>
> Unlike  %variable% it is not easy to validate OGC filters, but should we
> have at least a method for disabling it with some metadata like
> “wms_filter_enabled”
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
> *Lähettäjä:*mapserver-dev [mailto:[hidden email]]
> *Puolesta *Rahkonen Jukka (MML)
> *Lähetetty:* 16. elokuuta 2017 7:12
> *Vastaanottaja:* Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <[hidden email]>; Daniel
> Morissette <[hidden email]>; 'MapServer Dev List'
> <[hidden email]>
> *Aihe:* Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific
> WMS FILTER param
>
> +1
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Lähettäjä: *Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <mailto:[hidden email]>
> *Lähetetty: *‎16.‎8.‎2017 3:01
> *Vastaanottaja: *Daniel Morissette <mailto:[hidden email]>;
> 'MapServer Dev List' <mailto:[hidden email]>
> *Aihe: *Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific
> WMS FILTER param
>
> +1
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*mapserver-dev <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> on behalf of Daniel
> Morissette <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:41:33 PM
> *To:* 'MapServer Dev List'
> *Subject:* [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS
> FILTER param
>
> We had the discussion on RFC 118 back in February and the code in my
> fork (https://github.com/dmorissette/mapserver/tree/rfc118-filter) has
> been in use in a few apps since, but we haven't voted to include it
> officially in 7.2 yet.
>
> So unless there is more feedback, I'll move to adopt MS RFC 118 -
> Support Vendor-Specific OGC FILTER parameter in WMS requests:
>
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-118.html
>
> And I start with my +1
>
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> Mapgears Inc
> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

jratike80
Hi Daniel,

You may be right because in WMS the number of features should not really be so big because of scale limits, BBOX filter and rendering rules. My experience comes from WFS where the whole feature type is available for filtering.

-Jukka Rahkonen-


-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: mapserver-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] Puolesta Daniel Morissette
Lähetetty: 23. elokuuta 2017 16:02
Vastaanottaja: [hidden email]
Aihe: Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Hi Jukka,

That's a very good question and I thought the same as you at first, but when I think about it some more I'm not sure if the risk is real or not:
since the FILTER is combined with whatever pre-existing filter was already in the layer, it can only reduce the number of features returned/drawn, so it can hardly add much load, unless the number of features returned/drawn was already excessively high.

I didn't research this in details so I may be missing something obvious.
What do you think?

Daniel

On 2017-08-16 5:12 AM, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One thing that came late into my mind: it will be rather easy to write
> FILTER params which are very heavy to execute in the database. Same
> applies to SLD, see https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4703,
> and because of that server admin can deny the use of SLD by setting
> ows_sld_enabled metadata into false.
>
> Unlike  %variable% it is not easy to validate OGC filters, but should
> we have at least a method for disabling it with some metadata like
> “wms_filter_enabled”
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
> *Lähettäjä:*mapserver-dev
> [mailto:[hidden email]]
> *Puolesta *Rahkonen Jukka (MML)
> *Lähetetty:* 16. elokuuta 2017 7:12
> *Vastaanottaja:* Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <[hidden email]>; Daniel
> Morissette <[hidden email]>; 'MapServer Dev List'
> <[hidden email]>
> *Aihe:* Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific
> WMS FILTER param
>
> +1
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *Lähettäjä: *Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <mailto:[hidden email]>
> *Lähetetty: *‎16.‎8.‎2017 3:01
> *Vastaanottaja: *Daniel Morissette <mailto:[hidden email]>;
> 'MapServer Dev List' <mailto:[hidden email]>
> *Aihe: *Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific
> WMS FILTER param
>
> +1
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> *From:*mapserver-dev <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> on behalf of Daniel
> Morissette <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:41:33 PM
> *To:* 'MapServer Dev List'
> *Subject:* [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific
> WMS FILTER param
>
> We had the discussion on RFC 118 back in February and the code in my
> fork (https://github.com/dmorissette/mapserver/tree/rfc118-filter) has
> been in use in a few apps since, but we haven't voted to include it
> officially in 7.2 yet.
>
> So unless there is more feedback, I'll move to adopt MS RFC 118 -
> Support Vendor-Specific OGC FILTER parameter in WMS requests:
>
> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-118.html
>
> And I start with my +1
>
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> Mapgears Inc
> T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Andrea Peri
In reply to this post by Daniel Morissette
Hi,

The trick is to have every fields of db indexed

Otherwise a remote filter on an not indexed fields could slowly hardly.
:)




Il 23 Ago 2017 15:06, "Daniel Morissette" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
Hi Jukka,

That's a very good question and I thought the same as you at first, but when I think about it some more I'm not sure if the risk is real or not: since the FILTER is combined with whatever pre-existing filter was already in the layer, it can only reduce the number of features returned/drawn, so it can hardly add much load, unless the number of features returned/drawn was already excessively high.

I didn't research this in details so I may be missing something obvious. What do you think?

Daniel

On 2017-08-16 5:12 AM, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
Hi,

One thing that came late into my mind: it will be rather easy to write FILTER params which are very heavy to execute in the database. Same applies to SLD, see https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/pull/4703, and because of that server admin can deny the use of SLD by setting ows_sld_enabled metadata into false.

Unlike  %variable% it is not easy to validate OGC filters, but should we have at least a method for disabling it with some metadata like “wms_filter_enabled”

-Jukka Rahkonen-

*Lähettäjä:*mapserver-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] *Puolesta *Rahkonen Jukka (MML)
*Lähetetty:* 16. elokuuta 2017 7:12
*Vastaanottaja:* Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <[hidden email]>; Daniel Morissette <[hidden email]>; 'MapServer Dev List' <[hidden email]>
*Aihe:* Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

+1

-Jukka Rahkonen-

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Lähettäjä: *Lime, Steve D (MNIT) <mailto:[hidden email]>
*Lähetetty: *‎16.‎8.‎2017 3:01
*Vastaanottaja: *Daniel Morissette <mailto:[hidden email]>; 'MapServer Dev List' <mailto:[hidden email]>
*Aihe: *Re: [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

+1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:*mapserver-dev <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> on behalf of Daniel Morissette <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:41:33 PM
*To:* 'MapServer Dev List'
*Subject:* [mapserver-dev] MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

We had the discussion on RFC 118 back in February and the code in my
fork (https://github.com/dmorissette/mapserver/tree/rfc118-filter) has
been in use in a few apps since, but we haven't voted to include it
officially in 7.2 yet.

So unless there is more feedback, I'll move to adopt MS RFC 118 -
Support Vendor-Specific OGC FILTER parameter in WMS requests:

http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-118.html

And I start with my +1

Daniel
--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: <a href="tel:%2B1%20418-696-5056%20%23201" value="+14186965056" target="_blank">+1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev



_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev



--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: <a href="tel:%2B1%20418-696-5056%20%23201" value="+14186965056" target="_blank">+1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Daniel Morissette
On 2017-09-21 1:25 AM, Andrea Peri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The trick is to have every fields of db indexed
>
> Otherwise a remote filter on an not indexed fields could slowly hardly.
> :)
>

Keep in mind that the additional filter does not replace the original
filter, but is actually AND'ed to it. So it probably won't be that much
worse in general even without indexes on all fields since the extra
filter is only applied to those records that were already returned in
normal use without the WMS filter param.


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MOTION to adopt RFC 118 - Vendor-specific WMS FILTER param

Stephen Woodbridge
On 9/21/2017 12:15 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:

> On 2017-09-21 1:25 AM, Andrea Peri wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The trick is to have every fields of db indexed
>>
>> Otherwise a remote filter on an not indexed fields could slowly hardly.
>> :)
>>
>
> Keep in mind that the additional filter does not replace the original
> filter, but is actually AND'ed to it. So it probably won't be that much
> worse in general even without indexes on all fields since the extra
> filter is only applied to those records that were already returned in
> normal use without the WMS filter param.
>
>
And if I'm not mistaken, indexing will only help on the primary record
selection, like a spatial index, then you have a new record set and that
record set is not indexed so you then have to cycle through that and
applied each filter to each record to get the final record set. I think
this is what Daniel is explaining.

-Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev