[postgis-users] raster loading and ST_Value performance

Francois Hugues hugues.francois at irstea.fr
Tue Sep 18 22:23:57 PDT 2012


I'm not really what you can call an expert, but I can try to help you

Q1 : Tiling will help you if you make an index on your raster table (using GIST and st_convexhull). I don't see any index in what you described.

Q2 : Tiling +Index will speed up your query. You should also reduce time using st_intersects(rast,the_geom) in the where clause.


PS : My mail problem should be resolved so if anyone see this mail as a new thread, please tell me.

-------- Message d'origine--------
De: postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net de la part de Phil Hurvitz
Date: mer. 19/09/2012 03:11
À: postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
Objet : [postgis-users] raster loading and ST_Value performance
Hello PostGIS raster experts,

I have loaded a raster representing slope for an area of Washington 
State (USA). The source was a large Imagine (img/ige) file (about 4.3 
GB, 31935 x 34649 pixels at 10 m pixel size), which I copied to the db 

raster2pgsql  -I -C -e -Y -F -d -s 2926 -t 1000x1000 slope_ps.img 
gis.slope | psql dbname

I used the tiling of 1000x1000 after numerous attempts to load the 
raster without tiling, and using several different file types (TIFF, 
ArcInfo grid, ArcInfo ASCII), each of which caused a Segmentation 
Error/Core dump.

Now that I have a working raster, I can get a single point value using 
this query:

ST_Value(rast, the_geom, false) FROM slope,
(SELECT the_geom FROM twins_withn_wa LIMIT 1) AS foo;

  rid |    st_value
  ... |
  589 | 8.1965799331665
  ... |
(1120 rows)
Time: 4768.648 ms

4 s seems like a long time to get one value from a raster. Here is the 
output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE, which seems to show that the nested loop is 
taking most of the time:

                                                          QUERY PLAN
  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..312.67 rows=1120 width=164) (actual 
time=7.604..4736.852 rows=1120 loops=1)
    ->  Limit  (cost=0.00..0.26 rows=1 width=128) (actual 
time=0.005..0.005 rows=1 loops=1)
          ->  Seq Scan on twins_withn_wa  (cost=0.00..3043.02 rows=11702 
width=128) (actual time=0.004..0.004 rows=1 loops=1)
    ->  Seq Scan on slope  (cost=0.00..21.20 rows=1120 width=36) (actual 
time=0.004..0.890 rows=1120 loops=1)
  Total runtime: 4737.278 ms
(5 rows)

I am running on a fairly beefy RHEL 6.3 machine with 16 G RAM (8 GB 
allocated to PostgreSQL), PostGIS 2.0.1 on PostgreSQL 9.1.1:

select postgis_full_version();
  POSTGIS="2.0.1 r9979" GEOS="3.3.5-CAPI-1.7.5" PROJ="Rel. 4.7.1, 23 
September 2009" GDAL="GDAL 1.9.0, released 2011/12/29" LIBXML="2.7.6" RASTER
(1 row)

select version();
  PostgreSQL 9.1.1 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 
4.4.5 20110214 (Red Hat 4.4.5-6), 64-bit
(1 row)

I have two questions:

Q1: What effect does different tile size have on storage and performance?

Q2: We will need to be getting raster values from a large number of 
point tables over a large number of raster tables. Is there any method 
to speed up the queries?

Any pointers will be greatly appreciated!


Philip M. Hurvitz, PhD | Research Assistant Professor | UW-CBE
Urban Form Lab  | 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535  | Box 354802
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington  98195-4802, USA
phurvitz at u.washington.edu | http://gis.washington.edu/phurvitz
"What is essential is invisible to the eye." -de Saint-Exupéry
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20120919/8909337f/attachment.bin>

More information about the postgis-users mailing list