2009/7/21 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Jon Burgess
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 16:00 +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> Should the PostGIS database imported from the Planet.osm using
>>> osm2pgsql be only 13 GB? Someone else who imported it on #osm-dev
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Aude (Kate) wrote:
> Did you build a spatial index on any of the tables? That would add
> substantially to the database size, yet would improve performance and
> rendering.
osm2pgsql takes care of the spatial indexes, whichever mode (RAM or
slim) you choose.
Ch
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Jon Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 16:00 +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Should the PostGIS database imported from the Planet.osm using
>> osm2pgsql be only 13 GB? Someone else who imported it on #osm-dev
>> reported a size of 48 GB.
>>
>> Here's h
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 16:00 +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Should the PostGIS database imported from the Planet.osm using
> osm2pgsql be only 13 GB? Someone else who imported it on #osm-dev
> reported a size of 48 GB.
>
> Here's how I imported it:
>
>
> $ md5sum planet-090715.osm.bz2
>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason wrote:
> Should the PostGIS database imported from the Planet.osm using
> osm2pgsql be only 13 GB? Someone else who imported it on #osm-dev
> reported a size of 48 GB.
>
> Here's how I imported it:
>
>
> $ md5sum planet-090715.osm.bz2
> c892
Should the PostGIS database imported from the Planet.osm using
osm2pgsql be only 13 GB? Someone else who imported it on #osm-dev
reported a size of 48 GB.
Here's how I imported it:
$ md5sum planet-090715.osm.bz2
c89227585338c72dfcf4ff5d2aaacf53 planet-090715.osm.bz2
Imported with:
$ osm2pgsql
6 matches
Mail list logo