LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L Archives

QSERV-L Archives


QSERV-L@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L Home

QSERV-L  January 2016

QSERV-L January 2016

Subject:

CSS for tables used in shared scans.

From:

John Gates <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

General discussion for qserv (LSST prototype baseline catalog)

Date:

Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:59:58 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (33 lines)

There are some issues that come up with database tables that are 
expected to be used in shared scans. It would be good to have fields in 
CSS that indicate if a table should be locked in memory for a shared 
scan and its priority/speed of scan. We only want to have a few high use 
tables getting locked in memory when they are needed so that they are 
only loaded once and used by multiple queries. The only tables currently 
expected to get locked in memory are Object, Source, Object_extra, and 
Forced but this will probably change and I'd like to build the code so 
that it does this automatically off of information in CSS.

The priority/speed of a table is an indication of how long a query using 
that table will take and how the table is used.
- Object, while being a fairly large table is considered fast/high 
priority. It can often be used in a query by itself.
- Source and ForcedSource are fairly large and usually are joined with 
Object, so they are medium speed/priority
- Object_extra is expected to be quite large and need to join with 
Object, so it is slow low priority.

The point being the speed/priority of a table should be in CSS so that 
the czar can decide during analysis if a query should be fast (finish in 
about an hour), medium (about 6 hours), or slow (12 hours). This also 
means that code will need to be added to the czar to do this and pass 
the information to the worker.

Any thoughts on the best way to do this? Other concerns?

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
August 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use