[Thread Prev][Thread Next][Index]

[las_users] Any known issues with aggregating data sets with missing days?



In order to make things easier for our users, we have taken data sets that have a few missing days, and instead of listing each individual file in the pull-down menu in LAS Date sector on the left, we have aggregated it into one reference – ie, in the XML configuration file for each dataset, we have the start date, the size (the number of granules), and the step (1 day), as if the dataset was not missing any days.  This causes LAS to have pull down menus for the month, day, year, which is much easier than having a huge list of each granule. 


Are there any known side effects for doing this, that would cause issues for LAS or the users?  We are trying to isolate and track down some errors, and are wondering if they may be associated with aggregating the files in this manner.


So far, we have seen that if a missing day is requested, LAS will automatically select the closest existing granule: for example, in GHRSST ODYSSEA, April 17th 2008 (2008108) is missing, and asking LAS for it, LAS pulls up April 16th, 2008.  Animate appears to skip the missing granules all together – but this is hard for us to tell, due to the NetCDF library issue (which means we can only load ~4-6 granules in Animate).


1)       Are there other side effects we have not noticed? 

2)      Does this cause any errors?


Thank you,



[Thread Prev][Thread Next][Index]

Contact Us
Dept of Commerce / NOAA / OAR / PMEL / TMAP

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility Statement