[postgis-devel] [postgis-users] PSC Vote: Keep or drop Flatgeobuf in PostGIS 3.2.0

[Bruce Rindahl]

Rechecked the results.  I inadvertently had some .png tiles created.

For MVT the sizes are
Level 14 165 kb
Level 15 410 kb
Level 16 1290 kb

I will run a few more levels over the weekend

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:07 AM Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2021, at 10:04 AM, Bruce Rindahl <bruce.rindahl at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > MVT takes up a LOT of disk space.  The advantage is thousands of small
> files that Leaflet only asks for the tiles in the view and can cache the
> tiles.
>
> Does it? I would think the quantization would generally make them smaller
> (though the dictionary handling of attributions and redudant repetition
> from tile-to-tile of attributes could easily wash that out for an
> attributively rich data set.
>
> P
>
> > I haven't done a full seed of the smallest level as that would take days
> and days.  They are generated on the fly as requested and served directly
> after that.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 7:01 PM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
> > Just curious what are your MVT sizes comparable for you deepest tile
> level.
> >
> > I was hoping it would be better than Shapefile but guess not always, but
> good to see it is better than GeoJSON.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Regina
> >
> >
> >
> > From: postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Rindahl
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 7:29 PM
> > To: PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> > Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] [postgis-users] PSC Vote: Keep or drop
> Flatgeobuf in PostGIS 3.2.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Doing a quick test with the wildfires in CA the past 3 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shapefile = 9.42 MB
> >
> > GeoJSON = 26.5 MB
> >
> > FlatGeobuf  = 9.42 MB
> >
> >
> >
> > Right now I am serving the fires up via MVT on open layers and will try
> to add a FlatGeobuf layer for testing.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff McKenna <
> jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> >
> > As an aside, I appreciate this explanation on speed and benefits, Björn,
> > of FlatGeobuf.  Thanks,
> >
> > -jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff McKenna
> > GatewayGeo: Developers of MS4W, MapServer Consulting and Training
> > co-founder of FOSS4G
> > http://gatewaygeo.com/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-devel mailing list
> > postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-devel mailing list
> > postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20211216/e5bdeb2a/attachment.html>