On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 16:00 +0000, 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
> c89227585338c72dfcf4ff5d2aaacf53 planet-090715.osm.bz2
>
> Imported with:
>
> $ osm2pgsql -d gis -U avar -W -S ./wikimedia.style planet-090715.osm
> $ osm2pgsql -d gis-osm-like -U avar -W -S ./default.style planet-090715.osm
>
> gis=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('gis-osm-like'));
> pg_size_pretty
> ----------------
> 13 GB
> (1 row)
>
> gis=# select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('gis'));
> pg_size_pretty
> ----------------
> 15 GB
> (1 row)
>
That looks about correct for an import which was not done using the
--slim mode. There are far fewer tables and indexes.
The data at [1] gives a breakdown of all the table & index sizes for a
full slim-mode import. The ones related to the tables which are present
in the non-slim mode total to about 13GB
(planet_osm_{point,line,roads,polygon}). The tables used for the slim
mode and diff imports add another 50GB+ (planet_osm_{nodes,ways,rels}).
Jon
1: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-July/016059.html
____________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
