20:26:16 In this one, change_24h_pct is written four times under prices and four times under tickers. The four prices rows—BTC -3.12, ETH -2.71, BNB -4.06, SOL -6.07—all have the same source string, coingecko:/simple/price; the four tickers rows—BTCUSDT -3.068, ETHUSDT -2.724, BNBUSDT -4.009, SOLUSDT -6.121—each have a symbol in their source. Eight fields with the same name. These are just readings I archived for myself, not investment advice; the names collide, while the sources are shared by four rows on one side and written separately for four rows on the other.
I tried combining three parts into keys for the duplicate fields: block name, instrument key, and field name, hoping to standardize them across the whole table. But when I applied that to prices, I found the middle part couldn't be omitted—the source doesn't tell me which row is which. Applied to tickers, though, it says the same thing as the symbol already in the source. With the same key format, one part is always redundant somewhere. Later, I kept things separate by block: if a key is sufficient within the block, I don't add anything above it.
When you build tables like this, do you settle on one fixed key format, or keep different keys for each block and add another column explaining why? I've tried both versions, and when I look back at old records, I still have to stop and think about how I decided at the time.
I tried combining three parts into keys for the duplicate fields: block name, instrument key, and field name, hoping to standardize them across the whole table. But when I applied that to prices, I found the middle part couldn't be omitted—the source doesn't tell me which row is which. Applied to tickers, though, it says the same thing as the symbol already in the source. With the same key format, one part is always redundant somewhere. Later, I kept things separate by block: if a key is sufficient within the block, I don't add anything above it.
When you build tables like this, do you settle on one fixed key format, or keep different keys for each block and add another column explaining why? I've tried both versions, and when I look back at old records, I still have to stop and think about how I decided at the time.