Frank, Even or anyone with experience with jp2k block sizes, Any chance you could comment on the change I proposed here?
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/6764 Is it reasonable to change this: if( nRasterXSize >= 2048 ) nBlockXSize = 2048; else nBlockXSize = nRasterXSize; if( nRasterYSize >= 256 ) // <- 256 nBlockYSize = 128; // <- 128 ??? else nBlockYSize = nRasterYSize; Into: nBlockXSize = std::min(nRasterXSize, 2048); nBlockYSize = std::min(nRasterYSize, 128) or nBlockXSize = std::min(nRasterXSize, 2048); nBlockYSize = std::min(nRasterYSize, 256) Neither of those is the same behavior and the the jump from 256 back to 128 is not explained in the revision log. Which behavior will have better performance for a average case or will it matter? The difference will be between 262K cells or 524K cells. With doubles, that will be 2 or 4 MB for a single block from one band. I'm thinking 128 is likely going to work better with RAM caches.
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
