i agree with maria that there doesnt need to be a separate table to map
objectid<->alertid, but it may be useful/convenient to keep the first or
last alertid for each object in the object table, so for example users
can query on whether an object has ever had an alert or the last alert
for an object. if this is not a useful science question then alertid
doesnt need to be in the object table, only objectid in the alert table.
ani
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Tim Axelrod wrote:
> Jacek,
>
> I will look it up later (I am on a telecon), but my memory is that the
> alert rate is about 100,000 per night, not 10!
>
> An alert should apply only to a single object.
>
> Tim
>
> Jacek Becla wrote:
>
> > Maria,
> >
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > That would work if the answer is 'no', especially given
> > that the Alert table will be compact. (Can someone remind
> > me how many alerts we expect per night? Assuming 10,
> > the Alert table will be growing 3,000 rows/year,
> > that is nothing.)
> > We should then keep the bit in the Object table
> > indicating whether there was an alert for given Object
> > (as Tim suggested)
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacek
--
Aniruddha R. Thakar, Research Scientist
Center for Astrophysical Sciences, JHU, Bloomberg 375
3701 San Martin Drive, Baltimore MD 21218-2695
410-516-4850, Fax: 410-516-5096
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~thakar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm
beginning to believe it. [Clarence Darrow]
_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
