<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</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=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Just curious what are your MVT sizes comparable for you deepest tile level.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I was hoping it would be better than Shapefile but guess not always, but good to see it is better than GeoJSON.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regina<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bruce Rindahl<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 15, 2021 7:29 PM<br><b>To:</b> PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [postgis-devel] [postgis-users] PSC Vote: Keep or drop Flatgeobuf in PostGIS 3.2.0<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Doing a quick test with the wildfires in CA the past 3 years.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Shapefile = 9.42 MB<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>GeoJSON = 26.5 MB<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>FlatGeobuf = 9.42 MB<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Right now I am serving the fires up via MVT on open layers and will try to add a FlatGeobuf layer for testing.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Generated the file via ogr2ogr and will test when postGIS 3.2 is out but it does look like a compact format. QGIS imports it with no issues. As an exchange format it will have to be on the command line via ogr2ogr or psql either via GDAL or native postGIS<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff McKenna <<a href="mailto:jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com">jmckenna@gatewaygeomatics.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>As an aside, I appreciate this explanation on speed and benefits, Björn, <br>of FlatGeobuf. Thanks,<br><br>-jeff<br><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Jeff McKenna<br>GatewayGeo: Developers of MS4W, MapServer Consulting and Training<br>co-founder of FOSS4G<br><a href="http://gatewaygeo.com/" target="_blank">http://gatewaygeo.com/</a><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>