1 / 6

Cond DB and HVS through our spectacles

Cond DB and HVS through our spectacles. Lee Lueking Fermilab Con DB Meeting, June 28, 2004. Background. We are working on a set of database schemas to be used to store HCAL test beam metadata.

juliet
Download Presentation

Cond DB and HVS through our spectacles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cond DB and HVS through our spectacles Lee Lueking Fermilab Con DB Meeting, June 28, 2004

  2. Background • We are working on a set of database schemas to be used to store HCAL test beam metadata. • We have thought through the use cases, and requirements and have a design for an HCAL Conditions DB (HCDB) which includes calibration (described in this talk) and for Slow Controls Monitoring information (not described here but simple). • We are very interested in comparing our ideas with yours (Cond DB) and apologize if we have not fully appreciated the work you have already done.

  3. Schema for HCDB calibration

  4. Blob w/ calib info Schema for HCDB calibration Ped or gain Algorithm

  5. Comparing Cond DB HVS w/ HCDB • Hardware • HCDB is for a specific sub detector structure • Cond DB HVS approach is generic. • Time • HCDB uses run ranges for the test beam • Cond DB HVS has IOV • Data • HCDB is concerned about the relation of the data as it goes in, as well as how it is used. Includes algorithm used. • Cond DB HVS seems to be focused on access to the data. • Tagging • Similar concept for both. • HCDB is somewhat simpler with the constraints which run-ranges impose.

  6. Thoughts and Questions • We looked at the Requirements and Analysis document from Nov. 20, 2000. We feel there needs to be more specific use cases in order for us to understand if the proposed design satisfies the actual need. • In the domain decomposition picture (HVS paper, section 2.3), the regions overlap. What exactly do the overlaps indicate about the understanding of the problem? • Similarities are drawn between Cond DB problem and CVS. CVS is two dimensional (data and version) and the conditions have the additional dimension of time. It is not obvious that the concept of “head version” can be applied for conditions. One probably needs specific tag. All entries can be important for various purposes, current reconstruction, verifying previous result, etc. • Are slow controls monitoring included in ConDB?

More Related