[postgis-users] Quick Question re: raster2pgsql

[Mike Treglia]

Thanks, Jorge, very much!

My main concern was that data was being written somewhere for the database
postgres in the raster2pgsql process before it was established as a table
that I'd see, but it sounds like that's not the case.

And thanks for the feedback on Tile Size... ages ago I had done some
experimentation and that size ended up working well.  I have no
recollection what potential issues were coming up with coarser tile sizes,
but in case it helps for context, I ultimately use these data for spatial
overlays with fairly small polygons across the landscape.

And I'll just note that comparable raster2pgsql code worked for a similar
raster, only slightly smaller in dimensions, but as you note - it is slow
and took a while (albeit finished within about half a day if I recall
correctly).

Thanks again! As someone who's largely self taught with PostGIS &
Postgresql, with support from books and blogs, I always appreciate the
invaluable insights folks here have :-)

Mike

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:03 AM Jorge Gustavo Rocha <jgr at di.uminho.pt>
wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> The raster and the overviews will be in your base_rasters schema. The
> raster itself will be landcover6in_2010. Overviews will be
> o_256_landcover6in_2010, o_128_landcover6in_2010 and so on.
>
> If there are no tables there, you don't need to do anything. Just
> restart the import again.
>
> I would recommend bigger tiles. 128x128 tiles are quite small and you
> will end up with too many rows. Try 1000x1000 tiles if you really don't
> need 128x128 for any special processing.
>
> raster2pgsql is slow. It will take a couple of hours.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jorge
>
> Às 15:30 de 15/02/21, Mike Treglia escreveu:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've had an import of a raster going on my computer for a few days
> > (going on 3 days) now via rater2pgsql.  It was pretty comparable to a
> > raster import that took something around ~12 hours, except I was
> > building additional overview levels - my command line looks something
> > like this:
> >
> > raster2pgsql -s 2263 -d -C -t 128x128 -M -I -l 4,16,128,256
> > "LandCover.tif" base_rasters.landcover6in_2010 | psql.exe -h localhost
> > -U postgres -d db -v ON_ERROR_STOP=1
> >
> > (the overview levels I added were 128 and 256... maybe should've tested
> > on a subset of the data... first. It is a large raster - 320,000 x
> > 320,000 8 bit unsigned int pixels)
> >
> > I'm getting to a point where I'll need to restart my pc for some
> > administrative processes - thus, I was wondering - if I kill the
> > raster2pgsql process before it complete, will I need to clean up those
> > files somewhere? (at this point I haven't seen any of the files showing
> > up in my database, so simply dropping the tables doesn't seem like it
> > would work)
> >
> > Any insights are greatly appreciated - thank you!
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
> >
>
> J. Gustavo
> --
> Jorge Gustavo Rocha
> Departamento de Informática
> Universidade do Minho
> 4710-057 Braga
> Gabinete 3.29 (Piso 3)
> Tel: +351 253604480
> Fax: +351 253604471
> Móvel: +351 910333888
> skype: nabocudnosor
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20210215/ee9de0e3/attachment.html>