> Is the table purposely named to disaggregate it (in any listing) from > test_results? No.
> Can we instead use test_result_unmatched? Yes. > Or in fact, would people import fetched results into a staging table > and should this table be part of the schema? This table was thought to *be* the staging table. It *is* part of the schema already. I tried to set up the fields such that they might be a reasonable attempt at matching any test results. An importer might, however, use several more staging table if need be. > I might think that instead of writing unmatched results into an > "unmatched" table, we are really taking about the records that are > "leftover" from the staging table after being unable to be matched? Well, sure, that's precisely the point. The importer imports and whatever it can't match to a patient is dumped into the *_unmatched table. The user then needs to disambiguate and then the records are moved from there to the real table. For that parts of the importer code are re-run, of course. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
