← Back to context

Comment by jmyeet

8 hours ago

I had the exact same thought, particularly when I read there were fewer than 4M records.

I really have to wonder if people truly know how powerful any modern computer is. Like I just assume any modern PC with sufficient storage can handle a database with a billion rows of data. I think my phone probably could.

Now if you were, say, analyzing commercial satellite imagery of the entire US and trying to find rooftop solar, matching it against the database and finding data that wasn't in the dataset, that's something where your computer power would be way more relevant.

Come to think of it, you could probably use such imagery to construct a power generation network from power plants to transmission lines to utility poles. Of course some places have underground cables but there are other datasets for that.

Another interesting project is mapping the growth of solar. This would require access to commercial satellite imagery over time. I'm sure some government agency already does it. Or used to at least. Snapshots years or even months apart are less interesting.

Anyway, I guess the point is the author's computer is capable of way more than I suspect they think it is.

> than I suspect they think it is.

Because he wants to tell you about his computer it means he doesn’t know how capable it is?

I always make sure to downgrade my computer hardware before running a trivial analysis. Every dataset needs to redline the current configuration.