I generally agree with Steve, shapes (with spatial index) are in my experience the fastest - with all their disadvantages in datamanagement. It could be reasoned by the massive use of compression of attributes in filegdb-format. Comparing the filesizes, filegdbs produce significant smaller sizes (maybe just 10% of a shape). I often use sqlite/spatialite as "open" alternative to filegdb which seems to be a bit faster than fgdb and also has the benefits of a filebased db (as fgdb), maybe you should give it a try?
Regards Ben Luftbild und Geoinformationssysteme Kronprinzenstraße 35 45128 Essen [email protected] [cid:[email protected]] Von: mapserver-users [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Lime, Steve D (MNIT) Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 22:27 An: Mark Volz; [email protected] Betreff: Re: [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance You'll really just have to test side-by-side see. I've only done anecdotal testing with more moderate-size layers and found file geodatabases to be about twice as slow as a shapefile. Maybe others have done more rigorous benchmarking. MapServer 7.0 ESRI FileGDB API 1.2 GDAL 1.11.2 Steve From: mapserver-users [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Volz Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [mapserver-users] File GDB performance vs Shapefile Performance Hello, My interactive mapping application is currently using Shapefiles to store the contour lines. At 1.5 GB the Shapefiles are rather large. Instead I am considering using a File Geodatabase which will only take up about 500 MB. Is there a significant performance loss between Shapefiles and File Geodatabases? And are there any performance tips and tricks for using File Geodatabases? Thanks Sincerely, Mark Volz, GISP Lyon County GIS Coordinator
_______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
