Scantable vs MS


  • changing ASAP to use MS underneath means rewriting almost all methods
    • everything is based on row/Vector operations
  • Scantable stores polarisations individually, MS stores them in a matrix
    • no referencing possible - requires copying
  • Scantables stores Coordinates (per band), MS stores per channel information
  • MS is overkill for SD data


  • change Scantable schema closer to MS to allow future move.
  • write direct MS -> Scantable filler
    • only copy when necessary
    • faster
    • both are based on casa::Table so clever things can be done
    • all non-asap relevant information could be copied/referenced
  • write Scantable -> MS writer
    • preserve all (most) information/meta-data
  • don't use MS, use ALMA to Scantable Filler ;-)
  • trial implementation of complex functions e.g. freqAlign/polarimetry against MS. Keep api.
Last modified 13 years ago Last modified on 08/06/10 14:01:27