Hi @mhab Was Feature Caching enabled?
Hi @mhab Was Feature Caching enabled?
Not that I know of. It is running in BATCH from a DOS Skript ...
85Mio features in 55 files in FMETable at the moment, with 340Gb in total ...
Not that I know of. It is running in BATCH from a DOS Skript ...
85Mio features in 55 files in FMETable at the moment, with 340Gb in total ...
Please file a case at https://www.safe.com/support/report-a-problem/ Thanks!
I've only seen this when I accidentally left feature caching on and ran a parent workspace that ran a child workspace a few hundred times :-o
So after some testing, and while I was about to prepare the reprocase I think I found the reason for the extraordinary space consumption.
It is a FeatureJoiner where all data enter left, leave through the unjoined left port and then pass through a GeometryFilter, where Raster+PointCloud is searched for and everything passes through the <unfiltered> port.
This combination causes ALL data to be converted to a feature table, which is enourmous in size and written to FME_TEMP/FMETable. It takes very very long to get through the GeometryFilter.
I tried to pass all the data through the workspace without the FeatureJoiner+GeometryFilter - which are of no use in this case - just for comparison, and the difference was: 17h -> 2h (85Mio features) and 334Gb down to almost none in FME_TEMP/FMETable.
So I think this is just bad luck and no support case.
B.T.W. I wonder how much FME_TEMP I will need once all is tuned and uses FeatureTables ...
Hopefully by then, space will be cheaper than now ;-)
Michael
So after some testing, and while I was about to prepare the reprocase I think I found the reason for the extraordinary space consumption.
It is a FeatureJoiner where all data enter left, leave through the unjoined left port and then pass through a GeometryFilter, where Raster+PointCloud is searched for and everything passes through the <unfiltered> port.
This combination causes ALL data to be converted to a feature table, which is enourmous in size and written to FME_TEMP/FMETable. It takes very very long to get through the GeometryFilter.
I tried to pass all the data through the workspace without the FeatureJoiner+GeometryFilter - which are of no use in this case - just for comparison, and the difference was: 17h -> 2h (85Mio features) and 334Gb down to almost none in FME_TEMP/FMETable.
So I think this is just bad luck and no support case.
B.T.W. I wonder how much FME_TEMP I will need once all is tuned and uses FeatureTables ...
Hopefully by then, space will be cheaper than now ;-)
Michael
So I also checked the behaviour in FME 2018 and found that FME 2018 needs even more FME_TEMP space (~+30%) with the same dataset.
So after some testing, and while I was about to prepare the reprocase I think I found the reason for the extraordinary space consumption.
It is a FeatureJoiner where all data enter left, leave through the unjoined left port and then pass through a GeometryFilter, where Raster+PointCloud is searched for and everything passes through the <unfiltered> port.
This combination causes ALL data to be converted to a feature table, which is enourmous in size and written to FME_TEMP/FMETable. It takes very very long to get through the GeometryFilter.
I tried to pass all the data through the workspace without the FeatureJoiner+GeometryFilter - which are of no use in this case - just for comparison, and the difference was: 17h -> 2h (85Mio features) and 334Gb down to almost none in FME_TEMP/FMETable.
So I think this is just bad luck and no support case.
B.T.W. I wonder how much FME_TEMP I will need once all is tuned and uses FeatureTables ...
Hopefully by then, space will be cheaper than now ;-)
Michael
As a conclusion I ended up removing the FeatureJoiner from the workflow as it was needed only for a very special case. I handle the special case detection by some external scripting hack and set a parameter. This saves 30% performance and allows for much smaller FME_TEMP now.
Lesson learned !!
Hi Michael, definitely we'll want to look into this -- wouldn't expect that at all. If you can send us a repro -- particularly we'll be interested in the data types of your input data, we'll be pleased to dig in.
Hi Michael, definitely we'll want to look into this -- wouldn't expect that at all. If you can send us a repro -- particularly we'll be interested in the data types of your input data, we'll be pleased to dig in.
Data is on the way and some background info of what is done.
Just wanted to update that we are currently experimenting with adding compression to temporary feature tables. Early results are looking positive for some very good improvements in FME 2021. Seriously good.