| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: If you were to implement the original relation algebra language...
Bob Badour wrote:
> "Amund Trovåg"
> <amundAndHereEndethMyName_at_removeINOLIKESPAMYOUSEEtexassibir.com> wrote in
> message news:3FBD2223.5000107_at_removeINOLIKESPAMYOUSEEtexassibir.com...
>
>>Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster wrote: >> >>>"Amund Trovåg" >>
>>><news:3FBD12DB.40205_at_removeINOLIKESPAMYOUSEEtexassibir.com>... >>> >>> >>> >>>>Would precedence have a lot to say for optimization? >>>> >>>>I am currently working on doing just this, creating the grammar file >>> >>>>from BNF to JavaCC(a program that makes Java parser files for me, based >>> >>>>on a grammar). >>>> >>>>I am not certain whether project should have precedence over the other >>>>operators, as this might create trouble when combined with e.g. >>>
>>>>Any thoughts, comments or tips on how the grammar should be structured >>>>with regard to this? >>>
> In the end though, precedence is just a convention with
> little real importance.
Could have importance when implementing it though. Even Date says that
project should have the higher precedence in RA in Introduction to DB, 2003.
>
>
>
>>>Punt and require parentheses? >> >>What does punt mean? Pardon my english here...
>
>
>
>>>It shouldn't impede optimization, and >>>a functional notation for those of us with "standard" keyboards will >>>all but demand it: >>> >>
>>>You might be able to get away with R1 + R2 for union, R1 - R2 for >>>set difference, R1 * R2 for kernel panic: out of swap, etc., but you >>>should encourage parentheses here too, because R1 - (R1 - R2) isn't >>>the same as (R1 - R1) - R2. >> >>Yeah you got a point there. Association must be looked at when deciding >>for parentheses. >>I am actually going to allow the user to say "project" "union" etc, >>instead of using symbols...
Sincerely
Amund
Received on Thu Nov 20 2003 - 20:12:39 CST
![]() |
![]() |