<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">Thanks everyone.<div>In the end I did this in ArcMap and it took a couple of minutes. I wonder why the major difference in computational time?</div>
<div></div></span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Birgit Laggner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:birgit.laggner@vti.bund.de">birgit.laggner@vti.bund.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Ted,<br>
<br>
I am not sure if this would help very much, but I always make an
inner join on the bounding boxes of the geometries (as a sort of
filter), like this:<br>
<br>
create table countyShp as select cty.gid,
st_intersection(cty.the_geom,cst.the_geom) as the_geom from
countyShpWideBound as cty inner join uscoast as cst on cty.the_geom
&& cst.the_geom where
st_intersects(cty.the_geom,cst.the_geom);<br>
<br>
Are you sure, you have a gist-index on your geometries?<br>
<br>
But, with tables with more than 500000 rows, I get comparable run
times like you.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Birgit.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 01.12.2010 15:30, Ted Rosenbaum wrote:
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5">Hello,<br>
I am looking to take the standard Tiger/Line Shapefile of US
counties, which includes major waterways in the border of counties
(especially an issue around the Great Lakes) and truncate the
county polygons to exclude the area beyond the coastline. I tried
creating a new table based on two tables from two shapefiles --
one of the county polygons (from tiger/line) and one of the US
coastline-- using the following code:<br>
create table countyShp as select cty.gid,
st_intersection(cty.the_geom,cst.the_geom) as the_geom from
countyShpWideBound as cty, uscoast as cst where
st_intersects(cty.the_geom,cst.the_geom)<br>
<br>
I have indexes on the geometries in both tables, but this is
taking hours to run (I had a power failure after about 6 hours and
it was not finished running). <br>
<br>
This seems like it should be a very simple and common issue, so I
wanted to see if people could let me know either what I am doing
wrong in my SQL statement or of alternative approaches to
excluding areas of the coast from US county boundaries.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
-----------------------------------------<br>
Ted Rosenbaum<br>
Graduate Student<br>
Department of Economics<br>
Yale University<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
<a href="mailto:postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net" target="_blank">postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net</a>
<a href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users" target="_blank">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
postgis-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net">postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net</a><br>
<a href="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users" target="_blank">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>