Skip to content

data_groups #5

@johanvonboer

Description

@johanvonboer

In some cases, notably dendro and ceramics, but also abundance counting datasets, I use a concept I call "data_groups" which are groupings of datasets since each key/value pair in e.g. a dendro analysis is considered a "dataset". It is however, impractical to use it like this, we need something to bind the various datasets belonging to the same sample together somehow, and this is the basic concept of a data_group, if I remember correctly, let's hope I do.

Anyway, the point here is that this needs to be looked over. These "data groups" need to be as consistent as possible across various data types, I am not currently sure they are. They are also currently outputted in parallel with the regular datasets array from the JAS server, which is inefficient since it leads to outputting the same data twice to a high degree. Perhaps it would be possible to create clever bindings/references across the data structure which would avoid this to a large degree?

All of this of course also begs the question; Why do we even need this "data groups" construct to begin with? Can't we just re-arrange our data so that a "dataset" becomes the more intuitive grouping that the "data group" is trying to be? The answer to that is probably yes, but this requires structural changes in the database.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions