1

Let's say there are few transparent raster layers A, B, C...

I would imagine that it is better (performance wise) a) to have these layers marked as non-cacheable then create a layer group from them and cache it than b) having each layer cached and making WMS requests where list of layers is provided as LAYERS parameter, e.g., http://....&LAYERS=A,B,C....&STYLEs...

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Yes a layer group would be best, I'm pretty sure that making a request for multiple layers defeats the cache and you lose all benefit to it. The alternative to a layer group that would be almost as fast is to make 3 (or more) requests for each layer separately - this would use more bandwidth though.

Improve this answer
2
  • Also does having A, B, C layers cached separately and creating a layer group from them means that layer group does not have to be cached for the layer group to be served as cached layer? Do WMS requests for this layer group will return HIT in the header?
    – user435421
    Commented Jun 1, 2018 at 13:03
  • I don't think so, but you'd need to check the code to be sure
    – Ian Turton ♦
    Commented Jun 1, 2018 at 16:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.