[mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files

Wed Mar 22 05:26:56 GMT 2017

Hi Bernhard,

I assume that the merged file doesn't contain a bbox. In that case you may see a few nodes from ferry routes in the input file and
splitter will calculate a bbox containing them. I did not see this problem when merging Belgium + Netherlands with osmconvert.

Anyway, you may solve the problem in the future by using appropriate bounds, e.g. with osmconvert or with the --polygon-file option
in spltter.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. März 2017 19:15:13
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files

Hi Bernhard,

okay, that is a good guess. How do you combine the files? Do you download single country extracts from geofabrik
and merge them with osmconvert? Or maybe another tool?

The splitter log file may show some hints why the area is so large, and maybe you should check splitter option
no-trim.

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Bernhard Hiller <bhil at gmx.de>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. März 2017 18:56:51
An: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files

Hi Gerd,

mkgmap is running now, I'll likely report tomorrow.

But I already saw that the first tile took very long, and in the areas
file it is:
43100001: 1765376,-935936 to 2822144,139264
#       : 37.880859,-20.083008 to 60.556641,2.988281

So, I suspect that here could be a problem: some of the newly added
extracts inflates the area covered by the map extremely. I first thought
of the Dutch Antilles in the Caribean, but that's farther west and
farther south. I cannot see how that area comes into the map.

The maps I created before, typically contained Germany, Chechia,
Austria, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. That took normally less than an
hour per map.

Now I added Luxemburg, Belgium and Netherlands also, which does not
increase file size a lot. But the time for map creation was increased
enormously.

Bernhard

Am 21.03.2017 um 09:17 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> other tests did not show new results. Any idea why you got so different numbers?
>
> Gerd
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 20. März 2017 07:40:00
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files
>
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> reg. splitter:
> If I got that right you used pbf as input format for the "Germany" result and *.o5m for "Central Europe".
> Since the o5m format allows faster processing the splitter times are okay for me.
>
> reg. mkgmap:
> I've added a few lines in mkgmap to report the calculation time for each tile. As you might know,
> mkgmap starts a few threads (depending on the max-jobs option) and each thread processes on tile at a time.
> The threads share only a few data structures, and mkgmap doesn't collect much information for each tile in
> memory, so  there is no good reason for an increase of run time per processed tile.
>
> My system is probably close to yours, a machine with 8 GB Memory and a 4 core CPU (i5) running a 64 Windows.
>
> The attached patch adds a few lines to report the calculation time for a tile. The patched version is here:
> http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/339/mkgmap.jar
>
>   I've used the patched version to compile a map with the OpenfietsMap Lite style of an area around (and including) Germany .
> I used the attached dach-x.poly file with osmconvert and a planet.o5m file from 2017-01-17.
> and splitter with max-nodes00000 & keep-complete=true and found what I expected.
> Times are between 7 and 35 seconds per tile, most are around ~20 secs, no increase in time/tile.
> The time for the creation of the index / gmapsupp is rather short compared to the overall run time.
> The complete mkgmap log is here :
> http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/340/mkgmap_2017-03-20-064126.log
>
> So, I cannot reproduce your result for mkgmap.
> Maybe your machine was busy with other work like installing updates, maybe some tiles in the added area
> require much more time, maybe times depend on program options or style.
>
> I just noticed that I did not enable assertions (-ea) so  I now try a variant with a max-nodes00000 and -ea.
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Bernhard Hiller <bhil at gmx.de>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. März 2017 19:46:32
> An: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files
>
> Eventually I updated Java and tried the latest version of mkgmap 3847
> (and also splitter 580).
> The extracts were retrieved from Geofabrik on Saturday 18.
> Germany: 2.93 GB
> plus additional countries: 5.62 GB (incl. Germany) which were combined
> to a 7.57 GB o5m file.
> splitter: Germany 14 minutes - Central Europe 20 minutes
> mkgmap: Germany 30 minutes - Central Europe 133 minutes
> While splitter performed better than O(n) (more like O(sqrt(n))),
> mkgmap performed worse than O(n^2).
>
> Am 19.03.2017 um 12:06 schrieb Bernhard Hiller:
>> How is mkgmap expected to behave when input files grow in size? Is a
>> linear inrease in calculation time - i.e. O(n) - expected, or an
>> increase beyond linearity?
>> E.g. when I create a map with routable lines for bicycle, mkgmap takes
>> some 30 minutes for Germany alone (3 GB pbf file resulting in 850 MB
>> img file), but more than  2 hours for Germany and some neighboring
>> countries (7 GB o5m file, resulting 1.4 GB img).
>> Are there many calculations at O(n^2) or beyond in mkgmap, or is this
>> due to other factors, e.g. memory limitation?
>> Notes:
>> mkgmap is called by
>> %JAVA% -Xmx6800M -ea -jar %MKGMAP% ....
>> on 64bit Win 7;
>> swapping to disc does not occur.
>> But I am more interested in a general rule than in some hints for
>> improving the performance in this concrete case. E.g. how I could
>> estimate the duration if I add some further countries...
>> Thanks for your hints.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev