Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
Hi bawolff, thanks for your work. I'm not very happy about the name "metadata" for the table. As far as I understand it, this is about file metadata. "metadata" suggests it contains information on pages (e.g. statistics). Please consider using a name that contains 'file', e.g. file_metadata. Thanks, Church of emacs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:12 AM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote: > Hi bawolff, > > thanks for your work. > I'm not very happy about the name "metadata" for the table. As far as I > understand it, this is about file metadata. "metadata" suggests it > contains information on pages (e.g. statistics). > Please consider using a name that contains 'file', e.g. file_metadata. > > Thanks, > Church of emacs > > Hi. Thanks for your response. You make a very good point. Now that you mentioned it, I can very easily see that being confusing. I definitely agree that either file_metadata or image_metadata would be better. (file_metadata would be good because it contains metadata about files that aren't image, and is consistent with the renaming of image namespace to file, but image_metadata is more consistent with the db table naming scheme as other table is the image table. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter either way as long as its clear the tables about uploaded media). cheers, -bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
Hi Bawolff,
interesting project! I am currently preparing a "light" version of SMW that
does something very similar, but using wiki-defined properties for adding
metadata to normal pages (in essence, SMW is an extension to store and
retrieve page metadata for properties defined in the wiki -- like XMP for MW
pages; though our data model is not quite as sophisticated ;-).
The use cases for this light version are just what you describe: simple
retrieval (select) and basic inverse searches. The idea is to thus have a
solid foundation for editing and viewing data, so that more complex functions
like category intersections or arbitrary metadata conjunctive queries would be
done on external servers based on some data dump.
It would be great if the table you design could be used for such metadata as
well. As you say, XMP already requires extensibility by design, so it might
not be too much work to achieve this. SMW properties are usually identified by
pages in the wiki (like categories), so page titles can be used to refer to
them. This just requires that the meta_name field is long enough to hold MW
page title names. Your meta_schema could be used to separate wiki properties
from other XMP properties. SMW Light does not require nested structures, but
they could be interesting for possible extensions (the full SMW does support
one-level of nesting for making compound values).
Two things about your design I did not completely understand (maybe just
because I don't know much about XMP):
(1) You use mediumblob for values. This excludes range searches for numerical
image properties ("Show all images of height 1000px or more") which do not
seem to be overly costly if a suitable schema were used. If XMP has a typing
scheme for property values anyway, then I guess one could find the numbers and
simply put them in a table where the value field is a number. Is this use case
out of scope for you, or do you think the cost of reading from two tables too
high? One could also have an optional helper field "meta_numvalue" used for
sorting/range-SELECT when it is known from the input that the values that are
searched for are numbers.
(2) Each row in your table specifies property (name and schema), type, and the
additional meta_qualifies. Does this mean that one XMP property can have
values of many different types and with different flags for meta_qualifies?
Otherwise it seems like a lot of redundant data. Also, one could put stuff
like type and qualifies into the mediumblob value field if they are closely
tied together (I guess, when searching for some value, you implicitly specify
what type the data you search for has, so it is not problematic to search for
the value + type data at once). Maybe such considerations could simplify the
table layout, and also make it less specific to XMP.
But overall, I am quite excited to see this project progressing. Maybe we
could have some more alignment between the projects later on (How about
combining image metadata and custom wiki metadata about image pages in
queries? :-) but for GSoC you should definitely focus on your core goals and
solve this task as good as possible.
Best regards,
Markus
On Freitag, 28. Mai 2010, bawolff wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For those who don't know me, I'm one of the GSOC students this year.
> My mentor is ^demon, and my project is to enhance support for metadata
> in uploaded files. Similar to the recent thread on interwiki
> transclusions, I'd thought I'd ask for comments about what I propose
> to do.
>
> Currently metadata is stored in img_metadata field of the image table
> as a serialized php array. Well this works fine for the primary use
> case - listing the metadata in a little box on the image description
> page, its not very flexible. Its impossible to do queries like get a
> list of images with some specific metadata property equal to some
> specific value, or get a list of images ordered by what software
> edited them.
>
> So as part of my project I would like to move the metadata to its own
> table. However I think the structure of the table will need to be a
> little more complicated then just , , triples,
> since ideally it would be able to store XMP metadata, which can
> contain nested structures. XMP metadata is pretty much the most
> complex metadata format currently popular (for metadata stored inside
> images anyways), and can store pretty much all other types of
> metadata. Its also the only format that can store multi-lingual
> content, which is a definite plus as those commons folks love their
> languages. Thus I think it would be wise to make the table store
> information in a manner that is rather close to the XMP data model.
>
> So basically my proposed metadata table looks like:
>
> *meta_id - primary key, auto-incrementing integer
> *meta_page - foreign key for page_id - what image is this for
> *meta_type - type of entry - simple value or some sort of compound
> structure. XMP supports
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
More important than file_metadata and page asset metadata working with
the same db table backed, its important that you can query export all
the properties in the same way.
Within SMW you already have some "special" properties like pagelinks,
langlinks, category properties etc, that are not stored the same as the
other SMW page properties ... The SMW system should name-space all
these file_metadata properties along with all the other structured data
available and enable universal querying / RDF exporting all the
structured wiki data. This way file_metadata would just be one more
special data type with its own independent tables. ...
SMW should abstract the data store so it works with the existing
structured tables. I know this was already done for categories correct?
Was enabling this for all the other links and usage tables explored?
This also make sense from an architecture perspective, where
file_metadata is tied to the file asset and SMW properties are tied to
the asset wiki description page. This way you know you don't have to
think about that subset of metadata properties on page updates since
they are tied to the file asset not the wiki page propriety driven from
structured user input. Likewise uploading a new version of the file
would not touch the page data tables.
--michael
Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> Hi Bawolff,
>
> interesting project! I am currently preparing a "light" version of SMW that
> does something very similar, but using wiki-defined properties for adding
> metadata to normal pages (in essence, SMW is an extension to store and
> retrieve page metadata for properties defined in the wiki -- like XMP for MW
> pages; though our data model is not quite as sophisticated ;-).
>
> The use cases for this light version are just what you describe: simple
> retrieval (select) and basic inverse searches. The idea is to thus have a
> solid foundation for editing and viewing data, so that more complex functions
> like category intersections or arbitrary metadata conjunctive queries would
> be
> done on external servers based on some data dump.
>
> It would be great if the table you design could be used for such metadata as
> well. As you say, XMP already requires extensibility by design, so it might
> not be too much work to achieve this. SMW properties are usually identified
> by
> pages in the wiki (like categories), so page titles can be used to refer to
> them. This just requires that the meta_name field is long enough to hold MW
> page title names. Your meta_schema could be used to separate wiki properties
> from other XMP properties. SMW Light does not require nested structures, but
> they could be interesting for possible extensions (the full SMW does support
> one-level of nesting for making compound values).
>
> Two things about your design I did not completely understand (maybe just
> because I don't know much about XMP):
>
> (1) You use mediumblob for values. This excludes range searches for numerical
> image properties ("Show all images of height 1000px or more") which do not
> seem to be overly costly if a suitable schema were used. If XMP has a typing
> scheme for property values anyway, then I guess one could find the numbers
> and
> simply put them in a table where the value field is a number. Is this use
> case
> out of scope for you, or do you think the cost of reading from two tables too
> high? One could also have an optional helper field "meta_numvalue" used for
> sorting/range-SELECT when it is known from the input that the values that are
> searched for are numbers.
>
> (2) Each row in your table specifies property (name and schema), type, and
> the
> additional meta_qualifies. Does this mean that one XMP property can have
> values of many different types and with different flags for meta_qualifies?
> Otherwise it seems like a lot of redundant data. Also, one could put stuff
> like type and qualifies into the mediumblob value field if they are closely
> tied together (I guess, when searching for some value, you implicitly specify
> what type the data you search for has, so it is not problematic to search for
> the value + type data at once). Maybe such considerations could simplify the
> table layout, and also make it less specific to XMP.
>
> But overall, I am quite excited to see this project progressing. Maybe we
> could have some more alignment between the projects later on (How about
> combining image metadata and custom wiki metadata about image pages in
> queries? :-) but for GSoC you should definitely focus on your core goals and
> solve this task as good as possible.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On Freitag, 28. Mai 2010, bawolff wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For those who don't know me, I'm one of the GSOC students this year.
>> My mentor is ^demon, and my project is to enhance support for metadata
>> in uploaded files. Similar to the recent thread on interwiki
>> transclusions, I'd thought I'd ask for
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
(This gets a little bit off the topic, but it should still be helpful for the current discussion. But if we want to discuss a more general data management architecture for MW, then it might be sensible to make a new thread ;-) On Freitag, 28. Mai 2010, Michael Dale wrote: > More important than file_metadata and page asset metadata working with > the same db table backed, its important that you can query export all > the properties in the same way. > > Within SMW you already have some "special" properties like pagelinks, > langlinks, category properties etc, that are not stored the same as the > other SMW page properties ... The SMW system should name-space all > these file_metadata properties along with all the other structured data > available and enable universal querying / RDF exporting all the > structured wiki data. This way file_metadata would just be one more > special data type with its own independent tables. ... > > SMW should abstract the data store so it works with the existing > structured tables. I know this was already done for categories correct? More recent versions of SMW actually do no longer use MW's category table for this, mostly to improve query performance. [In a nutshell: SMW properties can refer to non-existing pages, and the full version of SMW therefore has its own independent page id management (because we want to use numerical IDs for all pages that are used as property values, whether or not they exist). Using IDs everywhere improves our query performance and reduces SQL query size, but it creates a barrier for including MW table data since more joins would be needed to translate between IDs. This is one reason SMW Light will not support queries: it uses a much simpler DB layout and less code, but the resulting DB is not as suitable for querying.] > Was enabling this for all the other links and usage tables explored? Having a unified view on the variety of MediaWiki data (page metadata, user- edited content data, file metadata, ...) would of course be great. But accomplishing this would require a more extensive effort than our little SMW extension. What SMW tries to provide for now is just a way of storing user- edited data in a wiki (and also for displaying/exporting it). Of course SMW already has a PHP abstraction for handling the property-value pairs that were added to some page, and this abstraction layer completely hides the underlying DB tables. This allows us to make more data accessible even if it is in other tables, and even to change the DB layout of our custom tables if required. You are right that such an abstraction could be extended to cover more of the native data of MediaWiki, so that data dumps can include it as well. I think this idea is realistic, and I hope that SMW helps to accomplish this in some future. Yet, this is not a small endeavour given that not even most basic data management features are deployed on the big Wikimedia projects today. To get there, we first need a code review regarding security and performance, and so for the moment we are pressed to reduce features and to shrink your code base. This is why we are currently building the "Light" version that only covers data input (without link syntax extensions), storage, look-up, and basic export/dump. For this step, I really think that sharing a data table with the EXIF extension would make sense, since the data looks very similar and a more complex DB layout is not necessary for the initial goals. We can always consider using more tables if the need arises. But I would be very happy if there were more people who want to make concrete progress toward the goal you describe. Meanwhile, we are planning in smaller steps ;-) > > This also make sense from an architecture perspective, where > file_metadata is tied to the file asset and SMW properties are tied to > the asset wiki description page. This way you know you don't have to > think about that subset of metadata properties on page updates since > they are tied to the file asset not the wiki page propriety driven from > structured user input. Likewise uploading a new version of the file > would not touch the page data tables. Right, it might be useful to distinguish the internal handles (and external URIs) of the Image page and of the image file. But having a dedicated meta_schema value for user-edited properties of the page might suffice to accomplish this on the DB level. I am fairly agnostic about the details, but I have a tendency to wait with developing a more sophisticated DB layout until we have some usage statistics from the initial deployment to guide us. -- Markus > > Markus Krötzsch wrote: > > Hi Bawolff, > > > > interesting project! I am currently preparing a "light" version of SMW > > that does something very similar, but using wiki-defined properties for > > adding metadata to normal pages (in essence, SMW is an extension to store > > and retrieve page metadata for properties def
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
On 05/28/2010 08:03 AM, bawolff wrote: > Hi all, > > For those who don't know me, I'm one of the GSOC students this year. > My mentor is ^demon, and my project is to enhance support for metadata > in uploaded files. Similar to the recent thread on interwiki > transclusions, I'd thought I'd ask for comments about what I propose > to do. Excellent! We're glad to have you on board. (FWIW I'm working on Multimedia Usability, so I'll be watching what you come up with closely). > So as part of my project I would like to move the metadata to its own > table. Great, although perhaps we could consider other things too (see below). > ideally it would be able to store XMP metadata, which can > contain nested structures. > Now, before everyone says eww nested structures in a db are > inefficient and what not, I don't think its that bad (however I'm new > to the whole scalability thing, so hopefully someone more > knowledgeable than me will confirm or deny that). Okay, I just wrote a little novel here, but please take it as just opening a discussion. I think you should try for a simpler design, but I'm open to discussion. I'm familiar with how MySQL scales (particularly for large image collections). Commons has a respectable collection of > 6.6 million media files, but just to put that into perspective, Facebook gets that in just a few hours. If we're successful in improving Commons' usability we'll probably get some multiple of our current intake rate. So we have to plan for hundreds of millions of media files, at least. POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH TREE STRUCTURES Tree structures in MySQL can be deceptively fast especially on single-machine tests. But it tends to be a nightmare in production environments. Turning what could be one query into eight or nine isn't so bad on a single machine, but consider when the database and web server are relatively far apart or loaded and thus and have high latency. Also, due to its crappy locking, MySQL sucks at keeping tree structures consistent. If we were doing this on Oracle it would be a different story -- they have some fancy features that make trees easy -- but we're on MySQL. The most scalable architectures use MySQL's strengths. MySQL is weak at storing trees. It's good at querying really simple, flat, schema. BLOBS OF SERIALIZED PHP ARE GOOD You should not be afraid of storing (some) data as serialized PHP, *especially* if it's a complex data structure. If the database doesn't need to query or index on a particular field, then it's a huge win NOT to parse it out into columns and reassemble it into PHP data structures on every access. GO FOR MEANINGFUL DATA, NOT DATA PRESERVATION Okay onto the next topic -- how you want to parse XMP out into a flat structure, with links between them. I think you were clever in how you tried to make the cost of storing the tree relatively minimal, but I just question whether it's necessary to store it at all, and whether this meets our needs. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that your structure is two steps beyond id-key-val in abstractness: it's id-schema-key-type-val. So the meaning of keys depends on the schema? So we might have a set of rows like this, for two images, id 1234 and 5678: id: 1234 schema: AcmeMetadata key: cameraType type: string val: canon-digital-rebel-xt id: 1234 schema: AcmeMetadata key: resolution type: string val: 1600x1200 id: 5678 schema: SomeOtherSchema key: recordingDevice type: string val: Canon Digital Rebel XT id: 5678 schema: SomeOtherSchema key: width type: int val: 1600 id:5678 schema: SomeOtherSchema key: height type: int val: 1200 The point is that between schemas, we'd use different keys and values to represent the same thing. While you've done a good job of preserving the exact data we received, this makes for an impossibly complicated query if we want to learn anything. When you find yourself defining a 'type' column you should be wary, because you're engaging in Inner-Platform Effect. MySQL has types already. It seems to me that we have no requirement to preserve exact key and value names in our database. What we need is *meaning* not data. So we shouldn't attempt to make a meta-metadata-format that has all the features of all possible metadata formats. Instead we should just standardize on one, hardcoded, metadata format that's useful for our purposes, and then translate other formats to that format. The simplest thing is just a flat series of columns. In other words, something like this: id: 1234 cameraType: canon-digital-rebel-xt width: 1600 height: 1200 id: 5678 cameraType: canon-digital-rebel-xt width: 1600 height: 1200 WHY EVEN HAVE A SEPARATE TABLE? If we're doing one row per media file (the ideal!) then there is no reason why you can't simply append these new metadata columns onto the existing image table. This would make querying REALLY easy, and it would simplify database management. And of course metadata formats differ, and not all metadata fields need to be
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
Since you are storing in the db the metadata of the images, try to make the schema able to store metadata coming from the page, so it can be used to implement bug 8298 or extensions like ImageFilter. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
I'm going to use this message to respond to several people with this email, hopefully it doesn't become confusing. Markus wrote: [snip] >(1) You use mediumblob for values. I'll be honest, I chose a type at random for that field. It needed to be long since it should be able to store rather long strings since some metadata formats don't have length limits on strings. (in that version of the new table plan anyway. based on feedback, I think I'll try to make my plan for tables much simpler) >Each row in your table specifies...meta_qualifies In xmp you can have special type of properties that instead of being a property of the image, modify the meaning of another property. The example given in the spec was if you have a creator property, you could have a qualifer for that property named role that denotes if that author proerty is the singer, the writer, or whatever. Its most common use seems to be in if multiple thumbnails of the image are stored in xmp at different resolutions, it uses qualifiers to specify the resolutions of the different choices (which is a kind of moot example for us, as i don't think we want to be storing embeded thumbnails of the image in the db). the column was meant to be boolean flag to say if this property was a sub-property of the parent, or if it modified the meaning of the parent. >But overall, I am quite excited to see this project progressing. Maybe we >could have some more alignment between the projects later on (How about >combining image metadata and custom wiki metadata about image pages in >queries? :-) but for GSoC you should definitely focus on your core goals and >solve this task as good as possible. Based on the comments I recieved I might be moving towards a more simple table layout which will probably be less aligned with SMW_light's goals, but I'd love to see more alignment where it fits into the goals of my project. Personally I've always thought that a lot of the smw stuff was rather cool. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: [snip] > > Okay, I just wrote a little novel here, but please take it as just > opening a discussion. I think you should try for a simpler design, but > I'm open to discussion. After reading the comments so far I tend to agree that perhaps my original design was a bit more complicated than it needed to be. Scalability is pretty much the number one concern, so the simpler the better > BLOBS OF SERIALIZED PHP ARE GOOD > > You should not be afraid of storing (some) data as serialized PHP, > *especially* if it's a complex data structure. If the database doesn't > need to query or index on a particular field, then it's a huge win NOT > to parse it out into columns and reassemble it into PHP data structures > on every access. > > GO FOR MEANINGFUL DATA, NOT DATA PRESERVATION > > Okay onto the next topic -- how you want to parse XMP out into a flat > structure, with links between them. I think you were clever in how you > tried to make the cost of storing the tree relatively minimal, but I > just question whether it's necessary to store it at all, and whether > this meets our needs. > [snip] > So we shouldn't attempt to make a meta-metadata-format that has all the > features of all possible metadata formats. Instead we should just > standardize on one, hardcoded, metadata format that's useful for our > purposes, and then translate other formats to that format. The simplest > thing is just a flat series of columns. In other words, something like this: > [snip] > > And of course metadata formats differ, and not all metadata fields need > to be queryable or indexable. It would be perfectly acceptable to parse > out some common interesting metadata into columns, and leave all the > other random stuff in a serialized PHP blob, much as we have today. That > structure could be recursive or whatever floats your boat. Hmm, I like the idea of using the serialized blobs generally, and then exposing some special few interesting properties into another table. I was actually thinking that perhaps page_props could be used for this. Currently all it contains is the hidden category listings (well and theoretically any extension can house stuff there using $wgPagePropLinkInvalidations, but i have yet to see an extension use that, which is a little surprising as it seems like a wonderful way to make really cool extensions really easily). Although it seems as if that table is more meant for properties that change the behaviour of the page they belong to in some way (like __HIDDENCAT__), any metadata stored there would still be a "property", so I don't think thats too abusing its purpose too much. Really there seems no reason to create a new table if that one will do fine. >Thanks a lot for presenting your design here in detail. If you want to >take it to a wiki I can reiterate some of this debate on your design's >talk page. Thank you for responding, your post has given me a lot to think about. I still have a lot to learn abou
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
2010/5/31 bawolff > > I'm going to use this message to respond to several people with this > email, hopefully it doesn't become confusing. > Since you're managinf EXIF data, consider too the possibility to *add* to them some relevant Commons: metadata (name of the File: page, copyright, categories). It would be great, if possible, that downoloaded image would contain them. I'm far from deep into the matter, it is only an old, layman idea I get when approaching to the magics of EXIF. Alex ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
Hi Alex. Thats actually on my list of to do if I have time. Building a metadata editor for files on the wiki (probably in the form of an extension) would be in phase 2 of my project. (In my project proposal it was on the list of things to do if I have extra time). Cheers, bawolff On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Alex Brollo wrote: > > > 2010/5/31 bawolff >> >> I'm going to use this message to respond to several people with this >> email, hopefully it doesn't become confusing. > > Since you're managinf EXIF data, consider too the possibility to add to > them some relevant Commons: metadata (name of the File: page, copyright, > categories). It would be great, if possible, that downoloaded image would > contain them. > > I'm far from deep into the matter, it is only an old, layman idea I get when > approaching to the magics of EXIF. > > Alex > > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
On 31 May 2010 14:14, bawolff wrote: > I'm going to use this message to respond to several people with this > email, hopefully it doesn't become confusing. > Hmm, I like the idea of using the serialized blobs generally, and then > exposing some special few interesting properties into another table. I > was actually thinking that perhaps page_props could be used for this. > Currently all it contains is the hidden category listings (well and > theoretically any extension can house stuff there using > $wgPagePropLinkInvalidations, but i have yet to see an extension use > that, which is a little surprising as it seems like a wonderful way to > make really cool extensions really easily). Although it seems as if > that table is more meant for properties that change the behaviour of > the page they belong to in some way (like __HIDDENCAT__), any metadata > stored there would still be a "property", so I don't think thats too > abusing its purpose too much. Really there seems no reason to create a > new table if that one will do fine. [...] > I think the page_props table would be the best way to implement bug > 8298. Actually i was reading up on the page_props table the other day, > and I believe that in the commit implementing that table, bug 8298 was > given as an example of something cool the table could be used to > implement. I tried to use page_props once. I did end up using my own table, since the parser thinks it owns the page_props table and when page is parsed it happily deletes all values stored in page_props it doesn't know about. -Niklas -- Niklas Laxström ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
2010/5/31 Niklas Laxström : > I tried to use page_props once. I did end up using my own table, since > the parser thinks it owns the page_props table and when page is parsed > it happily deletes all values stored in page_props it doesn't know > about. > The parser does indeed own the page_props table. It's intended for storing properties that can be derived at parse time and set by the parser itself or a parser hook through $parserOutput->setProperty($name, $value) . Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > 2010/5/31 Niklas Laxström : >> I tried to use page_props once. I did end up using my own table, since >> the parser thinks it owns the page_props table and when page is parsed >> it happily deletes all values stored in page_props it doesn't know >> about. >> > The parser does indeed own the page_props table. It's intended for > storing properties that can be derived at parse time and set by the > parser itself or a parser hook through > $parserOutput->setProperty($name, $value) . > > Roan Kattouw (Catrope) > Ah, I was thinking that looked like something too perfectly fitted to the situation to be true. However I still think it may be a good approach to generally keep the metadata as a serialized php blob, and have another table, similar looking to page_props to store specific metadata values of interest. cheers, bawolff ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
bawolff wrote: > > However, if I do implement a new table as part of this, it will > probably use page_ids to identify the image - I don't see any reason > to artificially restrict it to just the file namespace. Do remember that we'll also want to store metadata for old versions of images. And yes, I'm aware that our database schema isn't likely to lend itself to easy and elegant solutions to that. (My advice: try to go for simplicity at the expense of elegance, as long as it doesn't end up _too_ ugly.) -- Ilmari Karonen ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [gsoc] splitting the img_metadata field into a new table
Yes, I'll definitly keep that in mind. Currently I'm thinking that for deleted images and old versions of images I'll keep all the metadata inside img_metadata as serialized php, since most of the use cases for having metadata in a different table really only apply to the current version of images. Cheers, bawolff On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Ilmari Karonen wrote: > bawolff wrote: >> >> However, if I do implement a new table as part of this, it will >> probably use page_ids to identify the image - I don't see any reason >> to artificially restrict it to just the file namespace. > > Do remember that we'll also want to store metadata for old versions of > images. And yes, I'm aware that our database schema isn't likely to lend > itself to easy and elegant solutions to that. (My advice: try to go for > simplicity at the expense of elegance, as long as it doesn't end up _too_ > ugly.) > > -- > Ilmari Karonen > ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
