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