[Geomoose-users] Performance File Geodatabase vs Shapefiles

[Brian Fischer]

Ed,
We have been trying to use FGDB as well, but there is definitely decreased performance compared to shapefiles.  Also ran into some file locking problems.  I am hoping this will improve because a lot of organizations are moving towards managing their data in FDGB over shapefile.  The other approach I have been thinking about is getting a good translator to easily push a filegeodatabase into PostGIS.

We have also ran into a few other things like having to use absolute paths in the mapfile, feature classes can't be over a certain length and can't seem to access a standalone table using PHP mapscript.

I would encourage you to file bugs or enhancements suggestions in GDAL or mapserver.  I have been trying to do the same.  http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/query?status=%21closed&order=id&desc=1&type=defect and https://github.com/mapserver/mapserver/issues

Brian Fischer, CFM
Principal | GIS Project Manager
Houston Engineering, Inc.
O 763.493.4522 | D 763.493.6664 | M 763.229.2734

From: geomoose-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:geomoose-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Ed Boesenberg
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:52 AM
To: geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [Geomoose-users] Performance File Geodatabase vs Shapefiles

I added a file geodatabase to a new GM 2.6 application and the file geodatabase is slower at loading the features than compared to using shapefiles.  My FGDB has two feature datasets (manholes and pipes) with over 2,000 features each.  Is anyone using a file geodatabase to store their data and do you notice any performance decrease when compared to shapefiles?

Ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20121015/fb45b6d7/attachment.html>