Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: A better SQL implementation?

Re: A better SQL implementation?

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 8 Jun 2006 14:44:40 -0700
Message-ID: <1149803080.097680.203370@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>


Added a new term to BB lexics///

*nonsense*                        88 times
*nonsensical*                     55 times
*idiot*                                11 times
*twit filter*                          55 times
*crank*                              12 times
*fuck yourself*                     5 times
*troll*                                  1 time

I do not want to make this a discussion about BB or anybody. Please comment ideas.

Bob Badour a écrit :

> David Portas wrote:
>
> > Cimode wrote:
> >
> >>Let's give him a chance...
> >
> > I don't think he's said anything that has a chance really.
>
> I gave Cimode a chance. All he did was waste time. He's a troll.
David Portas a écrit :

> Cimode wrote:
>
> > What prevents using '=' as an operator to
> > mean 'CONTAINS' concept.
>
> Common sense. Why give the same operator two different (and potentially
> contradictory) meanings? In this case you can't even determine the
> meaning from the rest of the context so it's doubly bad and doubly
> dangerous.
>
> >
> > If you believe SQL has a sufficient support of complex data types such
> > as Document (set of words), what are the operators would define this
> > particular data type then using traditional SQL? (thank you for
> > adressing this particular definition.)
> >
>
> SQL has LIKE:
>
> WHERE document LIKE '%foo%' AND document LIKE '%bar%'
>
>
> > But I also believe the argumentation developped by the paper
> > exclusively concerns physical implementation even if he is not using
> > the right terminology. Index are implementation level and problems
> > expressed are real. I have encountered them countless times with
> > traditional SQL.
> >
>
> The argument *should* be one of physical implementation. But the paper
> says nothing useful about it! It presents no new implementation
> features at all. Most of the paper is taken up with discussion of
> queries, which have nothing to do with implementation.
>
>
> > I am curious as to why you believe that the logical meaning of '=' is
> > redefined by the author. He just uses the operator to define a
> > specific data type...
>
> If the author was using the usual logical meaning for = then the
> expression:
>
> kw = 'kw1' and kw = 'kw2'
>
> could not evaluate to anything other than FALSE (or UNKNOWN in 3VL).
> That's not the result implied by the paper. Maybe he means we are to
> interpret his queries differently somehow. Since he explains nothing we
> have to guess everything.
>
>
> > Let's give him a chance...
> >
>
> I don't think he's said anything that has a chance really.
>
> --
> David Portas
Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 16:44:40 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US