Do you mean hdf5?
I extensively used COGs (cloud optimised geotiffs) and NetCDF4 (based on hdf5) at work over the last 10 years. Both have their pros and cons.
The main limitation with geotiff is its pretty much only usable for layered 2D raster data.
NetCDF4 (hdf5) can set up frames of any dimensionality, you can have datetime axes, time series data, 100d ensemble data, etc.
Yeah. h5 is the typical industry shorthand and file extension.
The h5 saga was NASA saying “we’re going to create a file format that does EVERTHING”, and well… it does… poorly.
Everything that h5 is allegedly better for is better solved by just moving to either sql or postgres. And if the data aren’t that complex, then just send me a geotiff.
If you send me an h5 the first thing I’m doing is moving it over to sqlite or postgres.
Do you mean hdf5? I extensively used COGs (cloud optimised geotiffs) and NetCDF4 (based on hdf5) at work over the last 10 years. Both have their pros and cons.
The main limitation with geotiff is its pretty much only usable for layered 2D raster data.
NetCDF4 (hdf5) can set up frames of any dimensionality, you can have datetime axes, time series data, 100d ensemble data, etc.
Yeah. h5 is the typical industry shorthand and file extension.
The h5 saga was NASA saying “we’re going to create a file format that does EVERTHING”, and well… it does… poorly.
Everything that h5 is allegedly better for is better solved by just moving to either sql or postgres. And if the data aren’t that complex, then just send me a geotiff.
If you send me an h5 the first thing I’m doing is moving it over to sqlite or postgres.