On 4 March 2017 at 18:03, Tobias Wendorff
wrote:
> Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 08:34 schrieb Alessandro Pasotti:
>>
>> Yes, that would be a strategy, but you might run into problem with
>> sorting and filtering if the data provider does not support for it.
>
> All
On 04/03/2017 10:58, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
> Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 10:38 schrieb Nathan Woodrow:
>>> If you go to settings -> options -> data sources you can change
>> "attribute table behaviour" to "show features visible on map"
>>
>> That means it will only request what you see in the map.
> Yeah,
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 10:38 schrieb Nathan Woodrow:
>
>> If you go to settings -> options -> data sources you can change
> "attribute table behaviour" to "show features visible on map"
>
> That means it will only request what you see in the map.
Yeah, that's totally fine right now. Thanks for help :)
Hey Tobias,
What Nyall posted is the only work around here.
> If you go to settings -> options -> data sources you can change
"attribute table behaviour" to "show features visible on map"
That means it will only request what you see in the map.
- Nathan
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Tobias
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 09:43 schrieb Raymond Nijssen:
> You seem to know about databases. For me, when my data passes around 1
> million records, I turn to work directly in the database
> (using pgadmin) and only use qgis for visualising the results.
That's okay for database-guys like us. But viewing
Hi Tobias,
You seem to know about databases. For me, when my data passes around 1
million records, I turn to work directly in the database (using pgadmin)
and only use qgis for visualising the results.
Regards,
Raymond
On 04-03-17 09:28, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 09:25
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> Hmm are you sure we don't do this already?
>
> I suspect we do. Each provider can handle the sorting, giving to it by
> QgsFeatureRequest, and hand the results back to the caller. I thought the
> attribute table was
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 09:25 schrieb Nathan Woodrow:
> Hmm are you sure we don't do this already?
Because the counter of attribute table increased to some hundret
thousand entries and my QGIS v2.18.3 got grayed out in the back,
leading to a crash some seconds after :(
With an unsaved project of
Hmm are you sure we don't do this already?
I suspect we do. Each provider can handle the sorting, giving to it by
QgsFeatureRequest, and hand the results back to the caller. I thought the
attribute table was already implemented this way.
Regards,
Nathan
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Tobias
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 08:34 schrieb Alessandro Pasotti:
>
> Yes, that would be a strategy, but you might run into problem with
> sorting and filtering if the data provider does not support for it.
All database-like formats, even Shapefile's DBF, support sorting
on database level. I've never
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tobias Wendorff <
tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote:
> Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 03:49 schrieb Nyall Dawson:
> >> I've loaded a PostgreSQL table with more than 3 * 10^6 entries.
> >> When accesing the attributes, QGIS downloads all the attributes!
> >> QGIS first gets
Am Sa, 4.03.2017, 03:49 schrieb Nyall Dawson:
>> I've loaded a PostgreSQL table with more than 3 * 10^6 entries.
>> When accesing the attributes, QGIS downloads all the attributes!
>> QGIS first gets instable and crashes afterwards.
>>
>> Actually, it would be more useful to download only the
On 4 March 2017 at 05:39, Tobias Wendorff
wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> I'm using QGIS 2.18.3 (Windows 7, 64bit with 16 GB of RAM).
>
> I've loaded a PostgreSQL table with more than 3 * 10^6 entries.
> When accesing the attributes, QGIS downloads all the attributes!
>
Hi there!
I'm using QGIS 2.18.3 (Windows 7, 64bit with 16 GB of RAM).
I've loaded a PostgreSQL table with more than 3 * 10^6 entries.
When accesing the attributes, QGIS downloads all the attributes!
QGIS first gets instable and crashes afterwards.
Actually, it would be more useful to download
14 matches
Mail list logo