I'll keep that in mind as soons as it goes to use case testing. Many
thanks again!
Best regards,
Sebastian
2008/11/25 Simone Giannecchini <simone.giannecchini@anonymised.com>:
512 is more or less a de-facto standard.
The correc tile size depdends pretty much on what you are going to do
with your data, hence probably you could capture some real use cases
into some test cases and then run them towards the same data but
converted with different tile size.Simone.
-------------------------------------------------------
Eng. Simone Giannecchini
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Owner - Software Engineer
Via Carignoni 51
55041 Camaiore (LU)
Italyphone: +39 0584983027
fax: +39 0584983027
mob: +39 333 8128928http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://simboss.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini-------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Sebastian Mueller <basti2nd@anonymised.com> wrote:
Thanks for the help and all the info! Thank u very much.
Did u or someone else played around with other tilesizes? Like 256 or
1024? Does is "dramatically" change the performance, or is 512 "the
best" tilesize?Regards,
Sebastian2008/11/25 Simone Giannecchini <simone.giannecchini@anonymised.com>:
- download fwtools
- gdal_translate -co "TILED=YES" -co "BLOCKXSIZE=512" -co
"BLOCKYSIZE=512" input.sid output.tif-------------------------------------------------------
Eng. Simone Giannecchini
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Owner - Software Engineer
Via Carignoni 51
55041 Camaiore (LU)
Italyphone: +39 0584983027
fax: +39 0584983027
mob: +39 333 8128928http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://simboss.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini-------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Sebastian Mueller <basti2nd@anonymised.com> wrote:
Ciao Simone,
Thanks for that info, so at least I know it could be faster... but now
is the question, who to do achive that?Regards and many thanks,
Sebastian