[Loadstone] Database redesign
shawn at loadstone-gps.com
Thu May 8 06:56:12 BST 2008
The user id might be a problem but not any time soon. Unfortunately every
byte added to a point record makes the database that much bigger. No point
in a last modified field, duplicate checking is done on import.
The checkpoints aren't part of the database. They can reference the database
on load but that's only to see if the information needs updating. The only
difference with a list of route points would be that they're in a particular
order. When this is implemented there probably won't be much difference if
any between checkpoint format and route point format.
There will be a point typing system of some kind. We'll have to work out
what types to implement thoe and how exactly this will work.
On Thu, 8 May 2008, arimo at iki.fi wrote:
> If the database will berestructured some day i'll suggest following
> - User id seems to be currently only 16 bit integer. When user base
> increase there will a risk of duplicate user ids.
> - There could be a last modified field in the point data. When importing
> database is update only if the imported point is more recent than same
> point in the database.
> - There could be a new class of points, route points. These points are
> sorted list of lat & lon coordinates and a comment. These point have no
> relation with the point database and could be freely exchanged with other
> users regardless if they have similar points in their databases. Maybe
> these routepoints can someday replace current checkpoint system.
> - Personally i do not find much use for separate
> point classification data.
> - There could be an option to attach a voice recording to the point. For
> practical reasons these recordings will not be included when exporting
> the database.
> You can still escape from the Gates of hell: Use Linux!
> mr. M01510
> Loadstone mailing list
> Loadstone at loadstone-gps.com
More information about the Loadstone