[mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance

[Schepers, Benjamin]

I generally agree with Steve, shapes (with spatial index) are in my experience the fastest - with all their disadvantages in datamanagement.
It could be reasoned by the massive use of compression of attributes in filegdb-format. Comparing the  filesizes, filegdbs produce significant smaller sizes (maybe just 10% of a shape).
I often use sqlite/spatialite as "open" alternative to filegdb which seems to be a bit faster than fgdb and also has the benefits of a filebased db (as fgdb), maybe you should give it a try?

Regards

Ben

Luftbild und Geoinformationssysteme
Kronprinzenstraße 35
45128 Essen
schepers at rvr-online.de

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D15DDE.0C871FC0]

Von: mapserver-users [mailto:mapserver-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Im Auftrag von Lime, Steve D (MNIT)
Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 22:27
An: Mark Volz; mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
Betreff: Re: [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance

You'll really just have to test side-by-side see. I've only done anecdotal testing with more moderate-size layers and found file geodatabases to be about twice as slow as a shapefile. Maybe others have done more rigorous benchmarking.

MapServer 7.0
ESRI FileGDB API 1.2
GDAL 1.11.2

Steve

From: mapserver-users [mailto:mapserver-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mark Volz
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:39 PM
To: mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance

Hello,

My interactive mapping application is currently using Shapefiles to store the contour lines.  At 1.5 GB the Shapefiles are rather large.  Instead I am considering using a File Geodatabase which will only take up about 500 MB.

Is there a significant performance loss between Shapefiles and File Geodatabases?  And are there any performance tips and tricks for using File Geodatabases?

Thanks

Sincerely,
Mark Volz, GISP
Lyon County GIS Coordinator


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20160202/248c4a36/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8303 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20160202/248c4a36/attachment-0001.jpg>