TL;DR
We developed a hybrid algorithm that adaptively switches between Vector-Raster and Raster-Raster processing based on local polygon density. While the hybrid approach worked as expected, the real game-changer was discovering that simple spatial tiling alone delivered 4.5× performance improvements—often outperforming our sophisticated algorithmic optimizations.
Full technical details available in our research paper.
View report
The Problem
Processing large geospatial datasets involves a fundamental trade-off between Vector-Raster and Raster-Raster computational approaches:
- Vector-Raster Method: Efficient for sparse data but struggles with dense polygon regions
- Raster-Raster Method: Excellent for dense areas but memory-hungry and overkill for sparse regions
The question: Can we get the best of both worlds through intelligent method selection?
Our Approach
The Hybrid Method
We developed an adaptive algorithm that:
- Divides input data into spatial tiles
- Calculates polygon occupancy rate for each tile
- Routes sparse tiles (< threshold) to Vector-Raster processing
- Routes dense tiles (≥ threshold) to Raster-Raster processing
Experimental Design
Two-phase evaluation:
- Tiling scheme analysis: Tested all methods across 1×1 to 32×32 subdivisions
- Parameter optimization: Evaluated occupancy rate thresholds from 0.02 to 0.08
Test dataset: Four representative tiles with varying building densities
18_42: Dense urban (9.46% occupancy)18_43: Medium density (6.25% occupancy)20_50: Mixed areas (4.69% occupancy)24_52: Sparse rural (1.89% occupancy)
Results: The Good, The Expected, and The Surprising
✅ The Good: Hybrid Method Works
The adaptive approach delivered on its promise:
- Consistently matched or exceeded the better base method
- Up to 35% improvement on dense tiles like
18_42 - Maintained efficiency on sparse tiles
- Robust across different data characteristics
📊 The Expected: Optimal Parameters Vary
Different spatial patterns require different thresholds:
18_42(dense): Optimal at 6% threshold18_43(medium): Best at 5% threshold20_50(mixed): Optimal at 8% threshold24_52(sparse): Best at 7% threshold
Lesson: One size does not fit all in geospatial computing.
🚀 The Surprising: Tiling is the Real MVP
The biggest performance gains came from spatial tiling itself:
| Method | No Tiling | 8×8 Tiling | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vector-Raster | 985.5s | 216.6s | 4.5× faster |
| Raster-Raster | OOM | 227.2s | Made possible |
| Hybrid | OOM | 148.2s | Best of both |
Why tiling works so well:
- Sparse region skipping: Empty tiles can be bypassed entirely
- Computational complexity: Non-linear reduction in processing overhead
- Memory management: Enables processing of otherwise impossible datasets
- Parallelization: Better task distribution across cores
Key Insights
1. Spatial Data Structures Matter More Than Algorithms
The 4.5× improvement from tiling often exceeded gains from our sophisticated hybrid approach. This suggests that how you organize your data spatially can be more impactful than which algorithm you choose.
2. Context-Dependent Optimization is Essential
No single threshold worked optimally across all tiles. Real-world systems need adaptive parameter selection based on local data characteristics.
3. Memory Constraints Drive Design Decisions
The Raster-Raster method's memory requirements forced us to use tiling, which accidentally became our biggest performance win. Sometimes constraints lead to better solutions.
4. Diminishing Returns Exist
Performance peaked around 16×16 tiling (≈7,500×7,500 pixels). Beyond 32×32, management overhead outweighed computational benefits.
Limitations
- Limited dataset: Only four representative tiles tested
- Memory bias: Forced tiling may have skewed comparative results
- Fixed thresholds: Manual parameter tuning not suitable for automated pipelines
- Regular grids only: Didn't explore adaptive spatial partitioning
What's Next?
Immediate Applications
- Adaptive threshold selection: Real-time parameter optimization based on data characteristics
- Alternative partitioning: Quadtree decomposition, feature-aware tiling
- Scalability testing: Larger datasets, different resolutions
Broader Implications
- Prioritize spatial data structures in geospatial algorithm design
- Investigate tiling strategies as first-class optimization techniques
- Develop hybrid approaches for other computational geometry problems
The Bottom Line
While we set out to prove that algorithmic hybridization could improve geospatial processing, we discovered that smart spatial organization might be even more important. Our hybrid method works, but the real lesson is simpler: sometimes the biggest wins come from how you slice the problem, not how you solve each slice.
For the geomatics community, this suggests we should invest as much effort in spatial data structures and partitioning strategies as we do in developing new algorithms. The infrastructure often matters more than the implementation.