Scantable vs MS
Issues
- 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
Solutions
- 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
14 years ago
Last modified on 08/06/10 14:01:27
Note:
See TracWiki
for help on using the wiki.