[OSM-dev] Is there a way to use simple schema without hstore
brett at bretth.com
Sat Nov 20 01:09:55 GMT 2010
Hmm, I've given all of this a bit more thought. Perhaps there is a need for
a "simple" schema that is easy for people to populate and utilise. I'm
quite happy with hstore, but it's not as simple for those familiar with
The original reason I created the so-called simple schema was to support
improved bounding box functionality because I couldn't do it via flat files
efficiently. It was called "simple" because I was also working on a full
history schema that I never found time to complete. My intent has always
been to optimise for accurate bounding box query performance and not
simplicity so the name is something of a misnomer.
Anyway, perhaps I should re-instate the old tasks and run them alongside the
new ones. I'll have to re-think the naming of these tasks and schemas.
Perhaps "simple" and "snapshot" or something ...
But I don't know when I'll get to do this. I'm very time poor at the
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Brett Henderson <brett at bretth.com> wrote:
> Please keep in mind that the one and only reason I've switched to hstore is
> performance. It has nothing to do with any perceived improvements in schema
> design or adherence to an alternative data storage philosophy. It most
> certainly wasn't done for fun ;-) I only switched after spending many days
> trying alternate ways of indexing the database, waiting (in some cases for
> several days) for full index builds to occur, and re-running benchmarks to
> measure improvements. It was an incredibly tedious and frustrating
> experience that I only continued with in order to make the database scale
> more effectively to planet sized datasets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dev