[mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files

Wed Mar 22 20:30:42 GMT 2017

Hi Bernhard,

thanks for the feedback. I found a reason for the long run time, please  check my posts reg. r3861 and also this
one:
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2017q1/026489.html

Gerd
________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Bernhard Hiller <bhil at gmx.de>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 21:07:37
An: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Performance with large files

Hi Gerd,

it was one single tile which took more than 2 hours:
43100003.osm.pbf took ~7242 sec

It covers a large area, but not as big as the tile mentioned previously:
43100003: 1765376,741376 to 2203648,1310720
#       : 37.880859,15.908203 to 47.285156,28.125000

The input file "43100003.osm.pbf" measures 12.5 MB - quite a normal
size; the resulting img file is 4.2 MB, that's below average. Strange
that that takes such long.

The --polygon-file option (with a polygon from 2-19°E, 45-55°N) reduced
the time spent by mkgmap to just below 1 hour, no tile took more than
100s. Thanks for that trick.

I am still curious why the creation of a tile covering a large area, but
hardly containing nodes requires so much time. Also with the polygon
mentioned above, a large almost empty tile exists (South of Belgium,
because I did not include France) which took longest (97s).

Bernhard

Am 22.03.2017 um 06:26 schrieb Gerd Petermann:
> 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=ue 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
>