logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] Increasing the performance of whole-planet splits.

From Scott Crosby scrosby06 at gmail.com on Fri Jun 11 17:56:38 BST 2010

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Chris Miller <chris_overseas at hotmail.com>wrote:

> The limitation I see with a density map approach is that parts
> of the planet that have the highest node density would by definition
> contain
> the smallest split areas. This means the density map would need to be high
> enough resolution that we didn't have to test against too many candidate
> split areas in these dense parts (especially since these would be the most
> common tests).

A 256x256 map would have 65536 cells about 120km on a side. Looking at the
overview map of a max-nodes=1000000 split in qlandkarte, which shows tile
boundaries,.I'd guess the worst case would be 10-15 tiles in a cell. That
would prune away at least 97.5% of the bounds-checks.

With the planet file, at this nodecount and cell size, an R-tree traversal
would likely have more boundschecks than that. I could see an r-tree being a
win if tilesizes got a lot smaller, say people started to run
max-nodes=50000 splits, or spitted files with insane node densities, such as
contour lines.

To reduce the memory requirements, sets of candidate areas
> would probably need to be pooled and reused across multiple points on the
> density map.

I wouldn't worry too much about memory. Absolute worst case is each cell has
all 255 areas, which would be 4 bytes * 255 areas IntList * (256*256 cells)
=64mb. Use a ByteList and it's 16mb. Bitvector and it's 2mb. More
realistically, I'd expect it to be 1/10th of the worst case.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20100611/85660e27/attachment.html 

More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list