Yes, building a geography index is a lot more computationally expensive.
> On Nov 1, 2024, at 2:16 AM, Marco Boeringa <ma...@boeringa.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wondered if this is a known issue with geography. Up to now, I have always
> been using geometry but as a test with the new osm2pgsql v2.0.0, I have
> loaded Planet data of OpenStreetMap using geography. While most of that
> operation is about the same speed as with geometry, I see the creation of
> spatial indexes (GiST) on geography, taking about 2.5x times the amount of
> time it took on geometry.
>
> I appreciate geography is not geometry, and the underlying technical
> implementation details of the two may well explain the difference, but I am
> just wondering if someone can confirm this is a normal and expected
> observation for the difference between these two storage options regarding
> indexing.
>
> Marco
>
