On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > a few weeks ago when I announced that I am planning to rely on the new > binary format in the future, I caught some flak for claiming that an > .osm.pbf was not only faster to produce, parse, and transmit than a .bz2 but > it would also unpack faster. > > Kai did some measurements with osmosis and found unpacking the .osm.pbf to > be slower. > > I have now done some tests and also included Stefan's pbf2osm (which is > written in C). I used the current OSM file for the German state of Bavaria > for testing: > > File sizes: > > .osm 2462778377 > .osm.pbf 134579577 (with compression=deflate and lossless) > .osm.bz2 223006298 > > For completeness, would you be willing to also do a .osm.gz and try decompressing an osm.pbf with compression=none with osmosis and pbf2osm? Thanks, Scott
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
