Am 12.11.2015, 16:17 Uhr, schrieb Paulo van Breugel
<p.vanbreu...@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Neumann, Andreas <a.neum...@carto.net>
wrote:
I believe the main difference between SpatiaLite and Geopackage is that
a SpatiaLite database contains a lot of query functionality >>and
additional data (e.g. a big list of CRS) - while Geopackage does not
That would be a very big list of CRS, or does the query functionality
take that much space? I often used spatialite, but given >that I
normally use it to store many layers, I had actually never noticed the
large initial size. This is imho indeed a clear >disadvantage when used
for data sharing.
When you checked filesizes for shp: did you only look at the shp, or
also include dbf, shx, prj, etc.? Otherwise you comparing a >>complete
dataset with attributes and metadata against just geometry.
All files, not only the *.shp file. I just created a simple vector layer
in QGIS and saved it as shapefile, geopackage and >spatialite file.
Seems I'm a bit confused by the differences between spatialite and sqlite.
A spatialite db is always 4 MB + x which makes a huge difference for small
layers, but I guess the differences become closer when having "normal"
sized layers.
What is irritating me is, when I use a small layer and perform some
processing function and then save it as .sqlite to a file, the result is
only a few kb and not 4 MB.
So, having sqlite as default temporary output in processing would not make
any difference to ESRI shape sizewise!
Example: a shapefile point layer with quite some attributes and 999
features has 4.4 MB
saving this as spatialiate: 4.6 MB
saving as sqlite: 86 kB !
The sqlite file is 5 times smaller than the ESRI shape file while the
spatialite file is about the same as the shape.
Here on 2.8.3 at the office I have no geopackage option to test with.
So, whats the difference between sqlite and spatialite in detail?
Cheers
Bernd
Andreas
On 2015-11-12 15:36, Paulo van Breugel wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Matthias Kuhn <matth...@opengis.ch>
wrote:
The main issues with spatialite are IMO: It's based on sqlite so
deleting columns and renaming columns is not supported by design. We
could offer some hacks to bypass this (annoying restriction) from the
UI
- there is a risk of side effects though. Another property of it is,
that it's already 4-5MB big, even when empty. I consider this a major
limiting factor as well. Other issues which we were not yet able to
solve are its management of the information scheme which keep
duplicate
entries of tables and columns which need to be properly updated which
we
apparently do not manage (yet).
Geopackage is also based on sqlite, so the column delete/rename
restrictions apply as well (with the same workaround possibilities). I
haven't checked the file size, but if that's smaller, that would be
quite nice (does somebody know?).
Just checked saving a shapefile of 941 bytes as Spatialite and
Geopackage file. The first is indeed 4.4MB. The Geopackage is
>>>12.3kB, i.e., larger then the shapefile, but the increase is small
compared to the spatialite file. I am not familiar with the
>>>differences, but this makes the Geopackage a better candidate imho.
All the best
Matthias
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
--
Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
