Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Prototype one data type #3

Open
jomey opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Prototype one data type #3

jomey opened this issue May 22, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jomey
Copy link
Member

jomey commented May 22, 2024

Select one of the products to prototype an improved schema (database structure)

@aaarendt
Copy link
Member

aaarendt commented Aug 19, 2024

  • set up two separate instances of the points database, to ensure the prototype test times are not impacted by other participant queries: one is for performance testing, the other is for playing with a new relational schema (@micah-prime )
  • decide on which specific data stream will work best for the performance test and generate a query. Do this both as a straight SQL query and then using the snowexsql API (@jtmaze, @micahjohnson150 )

@micah-prime
Copy link
Contributor

micah-prime commented Aug 20, 2024

Noting steps for myself on spitting up a new instance for testing (status quo test)

  • Start new instance
  • Make public to UW ip for db queries
  • Run install on ubuntu script
  • Start db
  • Upload datasets

datasets to upload (focussing on point data)

  • GPR [add_unm_gpr.py, add_bsu_gpr.py, add_csu_gpr.py]

micah-prime added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 23, 2024
# This is the 1st commit message:

add a query notebook that points at the copy of the points table

# This is the commit message #2:

add what the point data table linking could look like, including what adding an object might look like

# This is the commit message #3:

Example of how the realtionship might look

# This is the commit message #4:

attempt at having many-to-many with observers

# This is the commit message #5:

 assuming we don't need back populate on instrument relationships
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants