[ensembl-dev] Surprising CCDS schema versions: mismatches with the version in the database name.
Daniel Barrell
db8 at sanger.ac.uk
Mon Nov 18 10:53:28 GMT 2013
Hi Jeremy,
The CCDS databases are made in advance of a release and inherent the
schema version of the database they were built on, often a release or
two before. They are put on the public mysql servers before the release
number in their name is public and therefore before the code and schema
has been finalised for a release. The meta value for schema_version
specifies the release schema the database is using and the number in the
database name reflects the release number that the data was used for.
Occasionally, a database has been patched when a significant schema
change means it will not work with the code release it is intended for,
hence the discrepancy in human 73. However, I need to look into why
release 74 uses schema 72, it may need to be patched up.
Regards
Daniel
On 15/11/13 16:29, Jeremy Henty wrote:
> I am surprised that several of the CCDS databases have schema versions
> that do not match what you would expect from their name.
>
> ccds_human_71: name version = '71', db version = '70'
> ccds_human_74: name version = '74', db version = '72'
> ccds_mouse_71: name version = '71', db version = '70'
> ccds_mouse_73: name version = '73', db version = '71'
> ccds_mouse_74: name version = '74', db version = '73'
>
> Since the schema version of ccds_human_73 is 73 as you would expect
> this means the schema version went *backwards* from ccds_human_73 to
> ccds_human_74 !
>
> Is there a reason for this? It would make scripting easier if we
> could reliably infer the schema version from the name.
>
> Jeremy Henty
> Anacode team
> Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list Dev at ensembl.org
> Posting guidelines and subscribe/unsubscribe info: http://lists.ensembl.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> Ensembl Blog: http://www.ensembl.info/
More information about the Dev
mailing list