1. WML2 Creation Performance Additional to the previous file size analysis How long does it take to create (and serve) a document with >100.000 values? Experiment with services from KISTERS and NRCAN  KISTERS AG KISTERS Partner Week 2011 1 21/06/2016

2.  KISTERS AG KISTERS Partner Week 2011 2 21/06/2016 Test Setup Tests with CURL with mean result of 3 requests All requests transferred ZIP encoded 1. Start of response includes DB access and building the internal data model 2. Production and streaming means creating the XML and streaming it at the same time CURL only measures full seconds so anything below 2s will be inaccurate (not really relevant here anyway)

3.  KISTERS AG KISTERS Partner Week 2011 3 21/06/2016 WML2 Creation Performance - Results NRCAN WML2 Service TS SizeTime till start of responseTime for production and streamingOverall 12922326,720,347,0 514339,78,718,3 100242,01,33,3 10070,70,00,7 KiWIS GRDC with SAX streaming TS SizeTime till start of responseTime for production and streaming 1046186,310,316,7 469503,34,37,7 124191,30,72,0 10360,70,00,7 KiWIS GRDC with direct string production without streaming TS SizeTime till start of responseTime for production and transfer 1046186,01,07,0 469503,00,33,3 124191,30,31,7 10360,70,00,7

4.  KISTERS AG KISTERS Partner Week 2011 4 21/06/2016 WML2 Creation Performance - Results Result 1 – Data transportation is not an issue Result 2 – Plain string generation even without streaming is about 10 times faster than using an XML library (SAX) more tests showed that parsing WML2 is much faster than writing it and therefore it probably is not a limiting factor (should still be checked in more depth) waterml waterml2 time series server encoding standard hydrological information system sos sensor observation service measurements gml geography markup language water kisters wiski his