Hi, > > Yes, I thought about keeping alertId in the Object table. The > > complication is that it is quite possible that an Object will have more > > than one alert sent over its history. So, if the alertId is in the > > Object table, you must still search somehow the Alert table to find the > > full set of alerts. > > Sounds like we need to introduce a new table for keeping the mapping > objectId --> alertIds (initially with two columns: objectId, alertId, > but I am sure we will find need for more columns in the future). > If there are no objections I'll add that to the pending-schema-changes > list
Can an alert correspond to more than one object? Probably not. Then you don't need a new table only and objectID in the Alert table Maria _______________________________________________ LSST-data mailing list [email protected] http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
