| | 1 | = Scantable vs MS = |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | == Issues == |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | * changing ASAP to use MS underneath means rewriting almost all methods |
| | 6 | * Scantable stores polarisations individually, MS stores them in a matrix |
| | 7 | * no referencing possible - requires copying |
| | 8 | * Scantables stores Coordinates (per band), MS stores per channel informations |
| | 9 | * MS is overkill for SD data |
| | 10 | |
| | 11 | == Solutions == |
| | 12 | |
| | 13 | * write direct MS -> Scantable filler |
| | 14 | * only copy when necessary |
| | 15 | * faster |
| | 16 | * both are based on casa::Table so clever things can be done |
| | 17 | * all non-asap relevant information could be copied/referenced |
| | 18 | * write Scantable -> MS writer |
| | 19 | * preserve all (most) information/meta-data |
| | 20 | |
