On 24-07-17 12:50, [email protected] wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:32:17 +0200, enrico chiaradia wrote: >> My second implementation uses Spatialite DB but I found it >> surprisingly slower than shapefile ... >> >> In my last implementation, I used a mixed approach, creating both >> shapefiles to store geometries and regular sqlite db to store simple >> tables. That is fast and space saving but it generates too much files. >> > > Hi Enrico, > > SpatiaLite simply is an extension to SQLite, so both them will > have exactly the same identical speed when handling regular > (non Spatial) Tables.
Hi Enrico, Just for completeness, did you consider using GeoPackage (also sqlite based)? See this older blog post for some differences between Spatialite and GeoPackage: [0] The author is one of the Geopackage guys, maybe Sandro (or others) wants to add arguments against it. The reason I promote GeoPackage nowadays, is that I think open standards are the way to go... Regards, Richard Duivenvoorde [0] https://cholmes.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/spatialite-and-geopackage/ _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
