with something else while compiling Scandinavia
with r3245, or the small patch I am working on is better than expected ;-)
Gerd
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:42:06 -0700
From: gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com
To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] r3239 in performance2 branch
Hi
Hi Gerd,
I also tested with r3245. For some regions this is even slower as
r3225. But in general, it will save me (or lets say better my pc) a
lot of time.
Henning
r3225 r3239 r3245
Germany 2110335 1830965 1775142 -13%-16%
Turkey 150734 137633 133942 -9% -11%
Hi Henning,
thanks for the info. I'll try to find out why Scandinavia and
Patagonia don't show an improvement.
One change is related to the number of routing nodes/arcs.
The bigger the number the more CPU time is saved.
I assume in these areas other algorithms are much more
important.
Gerd
Hi Gerd,
below you'll find the compared times, mkgmap needs to compile the map.
From o5m-tile til img-tiles and gmapsupp.img. Seems to be, that you
are on a good approach.
Henning
trunk branch
Germany 2110335 1830965 -13,24%
Turkey 150734 137633 -8,69%
Hi Henning,
r3245 should be good now, faster and no known errors.
I've also applied the oneway patch.
Gerd
Henning Scholland wrote
Hi Gerd,
below you'll find the compared times, mkgmap needs to compile the map.
From o5m-tile til img-tiles and gmapsupp.img. Seems to be, that you
are on a
Hi all,
I've coded what I described here:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/possible-tuning-for-evaluation-of-tags-tp5804504.html
Depending on the options and style I see improvements between 1 % and 15 %.
(1% for default style and options --route --preserve-element-order,
up to 15% for complex
