Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should SDF files contain other fields from database? #14

Open
jchodera opened this issue Oct 31, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

Should SDF files contain other fields from database? #14

jchodera opened this issue Oct 31, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@jchodera
Copy link
Contributor

.sdf files can contain multiple key-value pairs, meaning we could store other fields from the database in these files.

  • Should we do this?
  • If so, which fields should we store? All of them, or a subset?
  • If a subset, which fields?
@davidlmobley
Copy link
Member

davidlmobley commented Oct 31, 2014

I don’t have a strong opinion on this. Definitely some sort of molecule name should be there. Probably it would make sense to store all of the “primary” data. 

One small thing I don’t like about sdf files (which in general are great) is that they don’t normally store bond type information. 

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:17 PM, John Chodera notifications@github.com
wrote:

.sdf files can contain multiple key-value pairs, meaning we could store other fields from the database in these files.

  • Should we do this?
  • If so, which fields should we store? All of them, or a subset?

* If a subset, which fields?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#14

@davidlmobley
Copy link
Member

Any other comments? Otherwise I think the conclusion is that we store all of the primary data in the SDF files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants