2008/10/22 Sascha Silbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok. Do you plan to make your current format into a kind of standard for
binary, indexed OSM data or do you want to go with, say, Marcus' plans (for
which I don't clearly see if he wants it to be lossy or lossless)?
Well, I try to make a lossless one.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 01:42:39PM +0200, Freek wrote:
Much simpler, as more complex index structures also use more memory
(thus risking disk access penalty). Sorted lists, scanned with binary
search (= O(log n)).
Ok, but what about the O(1)?
Indices (or data) with one entry per id
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Freek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 19 October 2008, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:46:39PM +0200, Freek wrote:
Node/way/relation internal - external id:
- int - ext O(1)
- ext - int O(log n)
So what kind of indexes do
On Sunday 19 October 2008, Matt Amos wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Freek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 19 October 2008, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:46:39PM +0200, Freek wrote:
Node/way/relation internal - external id:
- int - ext O(1)
-
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Freek wrote:
Looks like we have enough ideas for adding indexes and such to an OSM
binary format, so if the rest of the structure is fixed I think we can
get it off the ground (I wouldn't mind at least helping out here and
there).
OK, so what do we
On Friday 17 October 2008, Sascha Silbe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Freek wrote:
Looks like we have enough ideas for adding indexes and such to an OSM
binary format, so if the rest of the structure is fixed I think we can
get it off the ground (I wouldn't mind at least
6 matches
Mail list logo
