<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.SprechblasentextZchn
{mso-style-name:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Sprechblasentext;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DE" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">I generally agree with Steve, shapes (with spatial index) are in my experience the fastest – with all their disadvantages in datamanagement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards<br>
<br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">Ben</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><br>
Luftbild und Geoinformationssysteme<br>
Kronprinzenstraße 35<br>
45128 Essen<br>
schepers@rvr-online.de<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><img width="132" height="107" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D15DDE.0C871FC0"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Von:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> mapserver-users [mailto:mapserver-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Lime, Steve D (MNIT)<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 1. Februar 2016 22:27<br>
<b>An:</b> Mark Volz; mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">MapServer 7.0<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">ESRI FileGDB API 1.2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">GDAL 1.11.2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> mapserver-users [mailto:mapserver-users-bounces@lists.osgeo.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Volz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 01, 2016 2:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hello,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Is there a significant performance loss between Shapefiles and File Geodatabases? And are there any performance tips and tricks for using File Geodatabases?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Mark Volz, GISP<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Lyon County GIS Coordinator<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>