GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266818091
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:54:51 -0500
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPGEOBGPAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B81D706.email@example.com><663D9BCEF1524D04936516981FC21BC6@HP><4B81F365.firstname.lastname@example.org>
The update I'm suggesting for DYS452 does not require the Ysearch database
structure to change, at all. And I see no reason to delay this update while
waiting for the whole database to be restructured to solve the micro-allele
issue, which I fully grant is a bigger issue and does require re-structuring.
Unless your IT department is using the lamest software on the planet, the update
to DYS452 is as simple as I indicated, and it would save your users a lot of
headaches in the interim you would do it.
I'm taking the rest of my reply offlist.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Thomas Krahn
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
> Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
> > Forgive me, Thomas, but this situation makes no sense to
> > me. If the IT department is using anything remotely like
> > typical SQL software, the entire database could be updated
> > with a single SQL command, at least with regard to
> > DYS452. Here is how simple the SQL command would be:
> > UPDATE database SET DYS452 = DYS452 + 19 WHERE
> > DYS452 < 24 and DYS452 > 0
> To the defense of the IT group I must say that this is of course more
> than just updating rows in a table. Note that the structure needs to
> be completely re-organized when micro-alleles are considered and
> that there are still some markers that are not clearly defined in
> nomenclature with the current NIST standards.
> This is of course no excuse to delay this change forever. I
> try to push this as good as I can.
|Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452 by "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>|