[Clas12_calcom] database tables

[Raffaella De Vita]

Dear All,
following Nick's question and the discussion we had last Friday, I 
edited the document (see attachment) to reflect the proposed change to 
the /daq/fadc table that would now also contain the parameter for Mode 1 
analysis. The proposed names are pedestal_start, pedestal_width, 
pulse_start, pulse_width .
Comments are welcome.
Best regards,
     Raffaella

nick markov wrote:
> Dear CALCOM group,
> I wonder if it possible and needed to add to the DAQ parameters tables parameters of MODE1 readings:
> FADC250_W_OFFSET
> FADC250_W_WIDTH
> Nick.
>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Mac Mestayer <mestayer at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CALCOM group;
>>
>> Thanks for the concise and well-written guidelines.
>> They are very good for focussing discussion.
>>
>> I agree with most of the 'best practices' advocated, so
>> I will only mention my two disagreements here:
>>
>> 1) sector, layer, component need not be enforced on the
>> tables (CCDB is much more flexible than CALDB was in this regard).
>> Not only that, but sector, layer, component is not at all applicable
>> to the drift chamber data-base.  See https://clasweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/DC-calibration_Constants
>> for a description of the DC calibration table structure.
>> We use indices like region, superlayer or region, superlayer, board, connector, etc. and I refuse to call a superlayer a layer, etc.
>> There is no need to try to enforce a false structure on everyone.
>>
>> 2) we should not use run number to denote a variation, such as
>> Monte Carlo.  This is precisely what variations are designed to do.
>> Talk to Hall D to find out how they use various variations to denote
>> Monte Carlo.  In fact, I think we may want to use actual run number
>> ranges for the Monte Carlo variations to follow, for example, different
>> luminosities and this proposed use of run numbers will just confuse
>> people.
>>
>> 				regards, Mac
>>
>> "mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Raffaella De Vita wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Harut and Bryan,
>>> following the discussion we had on the database, we have collected a set of "guidelines" concerning the calibration constants table structure, the use of variations, the use of run numbers etc.  that we would like to distribute. You can find in attachment the document we have produced.
>>> Let us know what you think about it.
>>> Best regards,
>>>    Raffaella
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas12_calcom mailing list
>> Clas12_calcom at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas12_calcom

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ccdb_tables_V5.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29884 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas12_calcom/attachments/20160411/bf89eb64/attachment-0001.docx>