gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] doc_med , txt blob


From: Ian Haywood
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] doc_med , txt blob
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:26:05 +1000
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060516)


James Busser wrote:
>
>
> I confess I lost sight of whether some incoming data --- reports that
> might have been sent through secure messaging rather than faxed ---
> will be going into some other storage area that better lent itself to
> searching... will it be going into a different storage area in the
> schema?
>

That's a good question. PostgreSQL can do text-searching well, but we
would waste a lot of time
searching through big radiology JPEGs that will never have the text we want.


Syan Tan wrote:
> the prelim au importer in client/importers/au  can now also import text based
> PIT format pathology, radiology and discharge summaries into gnumed
> blobs.doc_med , under the respective types "referral report pathology",
> "referral report radiology" and "discharge summary other".
I had thought clin.result.val_alpha was the proper place for PIT-type
results.
(i.e. a single unparseable blob of plain ASCII text)

No, wait, we've got doc_obj.fk_intended_reviewer now, cool.
This means clin.result and friends will be empty on AU systems
(we simply never get any atomic results data to put in there, and so don't
need it's other meta-data)
Is blobs.doc_obj.fk_intended_reviewer set to NULL when someone has
reviewed the document?
(otherwise the query may get slow checking against
blobs.reviewed_doc_objs for
every new document.

IMHO we could use doc_desc for PIT documents (which was originally
for OCR of scans) so searchable text data and non-text-searchable binary
data
are separate. This means PIT files would have a doc_med and a doc_desc
entry,
but no doc_obj.

But, there is no doc_desc.fk_intended_reviewer :-(
can we have this, or a doc_med.fk_intended_reviewer?

(I understand why you many want blobs.reviewed_doc_objs so
you can track reviewers of individual pages, but surely you
would not direct different pages of one logical document to different
reviewers?)

Ian




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]