Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:15:34 GMT
Message-ID: <GDz0l.150$xD3.108_at_edtnps83>
>
> It would help focus discussions if you could bring yourself
> to omit stuff like this. It tempts me to comment on its accuracy,
> which is not what this newsgroup is for.
> ...
>
> No, two will do: message and reply, where reply is-a message (i.e.
> same primary key with a dependency key(reply) \subseteq key(message)).
>
> An auxiliary predicate may be used to keep reply's transitive closure.
> ...
>
> I don't understand this remark.
>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:15:34 GMT
Message-ID: <GDz0l.150$xD3.108_at_edtnps83>
rpost wrote:
> paul c wrote:
...
>> When you talk of "replies to replies", as you have done in this thread, >> it makes me think that nothing I can say will cause you to think more >> precisely, which is what is needed.
>
> It would help focus discussions if you could bring yourself
> to omit stuff like this. It tempts me to comment on its accuracy,
> which is not what this newsgroup is for.
> ...
You could do well to be so tempted. The opposite is dooming oneself to endless dead-ends (apologies to Yogi Berra). Bring it on! ...
>> Obviously there are least three >> predicates here.
>
> No, two will do: message and reply, where reply is-a message (i.e.
> same primary key with a dependency key(reply) \subseteq key(message)).
>
> An auxiliary predicate may be used to keep reply's transitive closure.
> ...
In other words, 2 + 1 = 3 predicates.
>> If you are "in the trees", I invite you to try to put >> all three in one hierarchy, but I don't think I want you to show me the >> result3.
>
> I don't understand this remark.
>
I know you don't. Received on Fri Dec 12 2008 - 21:15:34 CET