| cjohnston | josepht: mhall119, mhall119: josepht | 22:08 |
|---|---|---|
| josepht | mhall119: greetings | 22:08 |
| cjohnston | josepht: 17.05.53 <mhall119> how many ImageResults will you have per machine_id? | 22:08 |
| cjohnston | 17.06.16 <mhall119> also, how many image arches would you have per machine_id? | 22:08 |
| cjohnston | 'huge' is a valid answer, correct? | 22:09 |
| josepht | yes | 22:09 |
| josepht | likely a couple of image arches per machine | 22:09 |
| cjohnston | 17.08.25 <mhall119> so really you want images per machine, not imageresult | 22:09 |
| cjohnston | he just stepped out to dinner | 22:10 |
| josepht | probably dozens of imageresults per machine per arch per day | 22:10 |
| mhall119 | have you guys thought about just making an M2M between Image and Machine? | 22:10 |
| mhall119 | because using ImageResult to link the two is going to have this kind of trouble, and won't scale very well | 22:11 |
| josepht | mhall119: where does the data for each run reside then? | 22:14 |
| mhall119 | josepht: keep ImageResult, but make another table directly linking Image and Machine that has only one record per machine+image combination | 22:16 |
| mhall119 | then, whenever you make a new ImageResult, check to see if there's an existing record in the new table, and add one if there is not | 22:16 |
| mhall119 | you can do that by overriding ImageResult.save() | 22:17 |
| josepht | where's the M2M relation then between ImageResult and ImageMachine? | 22:18 |
| mhall119 | they both have machine_id and image_id | 22:18 |
| mhall119 | you can use those | 22:18 |
| mhall119 | ok, really going to dinner now | 22:19 |
| josepht | mhall119: k, thanks for the input | 22:20 |
| mhall119 | np | 22:20 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!