Re: A better SQL implementation?

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:34:53 GMT
Message-ID: <1dZhg.19383$>

J M Davitt wrote:

> Cimode wrote:
> A different dialect of SQL? Well, he's added one more to the mix.
> For certain problems, his solution is probably a good one. But I
> can't help thinking that a completely different language would be
> a better approach and that implementation should not be part of
> the language.

 From what others have posted here, the 'solution' is not a solution at all but a very bad problem instead. How does one express equality? For instance, if one has two paragraphs from different documents, how does one determine if the paragraphs are the same?

Equality is both symmetric and antisymmetric, which makes it commutative. Contains is neither symmetric nor commutative.

What does join mean if one redefines equals to mean contains? How many optimizations might depend on the symmetry of equality? The whole idea undercuts the information principle. I find the proposal remarkably daft. It's even worse than Pick, and we all know how daft that is! Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 19:34:53 CEST

Original text of this message