[mkgmap-dev] Optimizing MapSplitter

Thu Nov 13 09:42:25 GMT 2014

Hi Andrzej,

thanks for the infos and the data. 
When you see the 50 % faster operations
whith the 29483018.img,
is that in a rather low populated area ?

Gerd

> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:19:13 +0100
> From: popej at poczta.onet.pl
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Optimizing MapSplitter
> 
> Hi Gerd,
> 
> I have prepared a tile in a way you have suggested. See files here:
> http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/224/test.7z
> 
> Archive include following maps:
> 29483019.img - map compiled by mkgmap with mkgm-test.bat
> 29483018.img - map recompiled by cGPSmapper with TreSize=511
> 29483017.img - map recompiled by cGPSmapper with default TreSize
> 
> I have included OSM data and mp source too. You can create img for 
> device using included mk_device.bat.
> 
> My observations are following:
> 
> All maps are work quite good in device, it is not easy to tell which is 
> the fastest.
> 
> I can measure differences in redraw time between both version of 
> cgpsmapper maps, the one with TreSize=511 can be up to 50% faster in 
> some operations (measured in nuvi 1440).
> 
> Map compiled with mkgmap is fast, as good as faster version of cgpsmapper.
> 
> Since mkgmap creates fast maps, I'm not sure now, if subdivision size is 
> so important. Maybe not, or maybe there is still some room for 
> improvement in mkgmap?
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Andrzej
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20141113/6797d3b5/attachment.html>