Closed bertspaan closed 4 years ago
This is normal and expected. All transfers are calculated on the actual street network, which takes time.
Yes but 8 minutes just for Amsterdam? That seems too slow.
I realize there are some big feeds in there (NS) but it should fail fast on the stops that are not near any streets.
Ah, I didn't notice that the OSM extract had been limited to Amsterdam. In that case I agree that it's a bit slow, although the combination of a limited OSM extract and GTFS feeds for the whole country (even if not all agencies are included) probably doesn't see much use, so I don't really have a feeling for what amount of time would be reasonable.
It would be nice if this combination (big train feed, small OSM extract) would properly skip over stations that have no nearby streets, since that's the only reasonable way to include trains in a local testing deployment. But I also don't know how long we should expect the search to take. I will check if it's using a simple, fast search technique like earliest arrival for the transfer calculations.
The problem was at least in part caused by a bad input file that contained all the NS stops twice. But the process still takes 6 minutes which seems unreasonably long for generating a one-city test graph to me.
It could be that the attempts to be clever with patterns are actually detrimental in this situation. In any case the code has change too much since I originally wrote it that I don't know where performance bottlenecks are to be expected anymore.
Command:
Output:
Input files: