-
Type:
Story
-
Status: Open (View Workflow)
-
Priority:
Normal
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
We are currently building the defects in the drp_pfs_data package because Gen3 apparently requires that, but we need to treat the different instruments (sim, LAM, Subaru) separately. jbosch recommends:
The natural way to do that would be to have a physical_detector dimension to go with the usual detector [slot] dimension, with another "dimension element" table that says which physical_detector maps to each detector for each observation, possibly mediated by a new site dimension.
I've left out everything but the linkage between dimensions.site: keys: ... ... exposure: keys: ... ... requires: [intrument] implies: [psf_design_id, dither, site] physical_detector: keys: ... ... requires: [instrument] detector: ... requires: [instrument] site_detector: ... requires: [site, detector] implies: [physical_detector] always_join: true exposure_site: ... requires: [site, exposure] always_join: true ...As a side note, you probably don't need to have both visit and exposure. I'd recommend collapsing that down to just one, and then you don't need visit_system or visit_definition, either.
A version with no site and an exposure_detector join-table defined asrequires: [exposure, detector] implies: [physical_detector]would be a slightly denormalized variant, which might be useful both to avoid a join and allow some site to shuffle detectors around in the future without, but it'd mean a lot of redundant entries in the database if that'll never happen.