Hi Franco, the differences in my numbers are not that drastical. I tried with Germany from geofabrik and got 5 minutes 21 seconds. for the o5m format and 12 min for pbf. Maybe the pbf reader could be improved to use multiple threads, but that's not my strength.
BTW: Your logs show many warnings like "Sorry, way 4216363 is missing 29 node(s)." . Maybe you should check your tool chain if these ways are relavant for you. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <[email protected]> im Auftrag von Franco Bez <[email protected]> Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Dezember 2020 13:37 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] splitter performance with "osm.pbf" compared to "o5m" |Hi Gerd,| |here are the two log files. | |http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/491/logs.tgz| |Ciao,| |Franco | Am 19.12.20 um 12:09 schrieb Gerd Petermann: > Hi Franco, > > OK, I guess 2048 areas should be enough and memory is for sure enough. The > major reason that I added o5m support to splitter was that this format was > much faster to read, esp. when the file is read multiple times some passes > only need relations or only ways. The pbf format didn't support this as well, > but I thought that I also improved handling of that format. > If you like you can zip the two logs and upload them to > http://files.mkgmap.org.uk . > > I'll do some tests on my own machine again. > > Gerd > > ________________________________________ > Von: mkgmap-dev <[email protected]> im Auftrag von > Franco Bez <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Dezember 2020 11:45 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] splitter performance with "osm.pbf" compared to > "o5m" > > Hi Gerd, > > thanks for the fast reply. > > I tried "java -ea -Xmx16G -Xms16G" but this doen't make any difference > on my machine, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 32GB Ram 2 SSDs 1TB each > > see the log extracts below. > > Ciao, > > Franco > _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
