individual measurements over time
that are associated with the object. The summary information is
roughly
equivalent to the SDSS catalog. I agree with Jim: we need a lot
more
than the 200 bytes I quoted for this. We're likely to be larger
than
SDSS simply because we will likely have a more ambitious shape
description scheme for extended objects. This should all drop out of
the LSST schema definition - we need to devote more attention to it!.
We should be able to estimate the size of the second, time-dependent
piece much more easily - my 50 byte number is probably not too far
off.
I've taken a lot of grief about the size of the SDSS catalog, but when
I point out that it's 5 band data and ask what we should omit, there
aren't many candidates (isophotal quantities; a clever-but-failed shape
parameter due to Gunn&Lupton) so I think that the SDSS number's probably
a fair, but slightly low, ballpark.
The per-observation number should be something like
ID, ra, dec, psfMag, extendedness (?) a quality bitfield and
errors,
so 50 bytes sounds fine.
R
_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
