Hi Even,
Yes, I thought it was a bit complicated issue. I would also support
replacing the array of pointers with a hashtable to eliminate the
unnecessary memory requirement. I've been looking at the code and
found a hashset implementation in CPL which could probably be utilized
here, however this
Selon Tamas Szekeres :
> Hi Even,
>
> Yes, I thought it was a bit complicated issue. I would also support
> replacing the array of pointers with a hashtable to eliminate the
> unnecessary memory requirement. I've been looking at the code and
> found a hashset implementation in CPL which could prob
2009/11/13 Even Rouault :
>
> But I'm surprised you claim it doesn't support auto-grow and cannot store
> items
> with the same hash value : those both features are already implemented and
> unless you prove me wrong, they work ;-)
>
Even,
Yes, you're right! By looking into the code again it l
Folks,
I've created a ticket with this issue and attached the patch trying to
handle both issues.
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/3224
According to the changes the gdal default block cache implementation
have been replaced with a hashtable based approach for the WMS driver,
and the raster sizes
Tamas Szekeres wrote:
Hi Even,
Yes, I thought it was a bit complicated issue. I would also support
replacing the array of pointers with a hashtable to eliminate the
unnecessary memory requirement. I've been looking at the code and
found a hashset implementation in CPL which could probably be uti
2009/11/13 Frank Warmerdam :
> Tamas Szekeres wrote:
>>
>> Hi Even,
>>
>> Yes, I thought it was a bit complicated issue. I would also support
>> replacing the array of pointers with a hashtable to eliminate the
>> unnecessary memory requirement. I've been looking at the code and
>> found a hashset
Jumping in here, and I may be misunderstanding, but I don't see how we
would have greater than 2 gigapixel images in the foreseeable future.
Doing the math: if we represent the entire earth as a single image, each
pixel would be 2 cm at the equator, and the whole image would be 6291456
TB in size (
2009/11/13 Seth Price :
> Jumping in here, and I may be misunderstanding, but I don't see how we
> would have greater than 2 gigapixel images in the foreseeable future.
> Doing the math: if we represent the entire earth as a single image, each
> pixel would be 2 cm at the equator, and the whole ima