IMO: Paul,
> > On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > What it comes down to is what is appropriate for your use case. > > Indeed! However, there seem to be vanishingly few use cases for which > raster-in-database is actually the more appropriate solution. > ;-) I beg to differ. > (BTW, point-in-time recovery, a nice example of a place where database > semantics have an upper hand. Although more modern file systems and > enterprise backup systems are pretty competitive now... even a > relatively simple hack like the OS/X Time Machine feature solves that > problem for-all-practical-purposes.) > Trying to manage very large regional datasets via a file based solution is problematic as described earlier with tile based approach to vector data in particular. Again for my use case the DB is better. Just to throw in another related issue: Lidar systems are throwing out an enormous amount of data. I had one dataset of only around 17 million odd records several years ago (of course stored in our corporate db ;-) ) that we could not handle with ArcGIS Desktop (v9.1). From memory it was a 32bit issue. What approaches are people using with large Lidar datasets? Bruce Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
