On 09/27/2012 02:50 PM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:58:24AM -0700, ps.tiara wrote:
but when i visualized the result of topology in x3d, it was mess..maybe i
made a mistake by wrong query??
How did you visualize ? What do you mean by "messy" ?
The topology in your backup results valid, and I can see it just fine.
But yes, I do see a lot of very small faces, a lot of edges close
to one other.
One more tip, you can "see" how many "messy" faces you have with this
query:
with inp as (
SELECT face_id, st_area(ST_GetFaceGeometry('simpanglima_topo', face_id))
FROM simpanglima_topo.face where face_id > 0
) SELECT * from inp order by st_area;
You'll see there are only 4 faces with an area > 10 square units, while
92 faces have an area < 0.0000006 square units...
It's still topologically valid, but probably not what you want.
It'd be an interesting research topic (since you're doing a research)
to figure out HOW to fix that situation _now_ that you have it encoded
as a topology.
I think you'll basically want to delete each face and make it part
of one of the big ones. You could recursively find an edge shared
between a big face and a small face and remove it.
--strk;
The workaround I described in ticket
http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/1946 helped for me.
Regards, Wim
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
