Timeline for From hundreds of shapefiles to PostGIS with some kind of directory/file structure
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2015 at 14:02 | vote | accept | Nicolas Boisteault | ||
| Feb 21, 2015 at 5:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackGIS/status/569004035019288576 | ||
| Feb 19, 2015 at 16:17 | answer | added | Martin F | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 19, 2015 at 10:49 | comment | added | Mike T | You'd be interested to know that PostGIS was created by consultants for situations similar to yours: where there were hundreds of shapefiles. | |
| Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 | history | edited | Nicolas Boisteault | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2015 at 17:20 | comment | added | Martin F | What John said: ie, explain why your imported shape-files need to be kept in different organizing structures, rather than in a single scheme or even single table. | |
| Feb 18, 2015 at 16:12 | history | edited | Nicolas Boisteault | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 121 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2015 at 13:58 | history | edited | John Powell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 18, 2015 at 13:57 | comment | added | John Powell | You question isn't totally clear, what do you mean by "losing too much time". What do your shape files represent? If they are from a similar coverage, you could theoretically put them all in one table and differentiate between them with some attribute column. There are tools, such as shp2pgsql that you can very easily script to load arbitrary numbers of shapes into Postgres. But you probably need to add more information to get a better answer. | |
| Feb 18, 2015 at 13:14 | history | asked | Nicolas Boisteault | CC BY-SA 3.0 |