Re: hamsterdb Transactional Storage (thanks to all of you)

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:26:06 -0300
Message-ID: <4ad49c11$0$23750$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>


paul c wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
>

>> compdb_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 10:56 am, rp..._at_pcwin518.campus.tue.nl (rpost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you have a generalized aggregate corresponding to series notation
>>>>> you can express UNNEST as UNION over a set of tuples.
>>>
>>> If we could define aggregates like SUM(R, X) and PRODUCT(R, X+Y) for
>>> arbitrary operators via a generalization of standard math SIGMA and PI
>>> series notation over elements of a set then we could define R UNNEST A
>>> as the iterated UNION over tuples t in R of expression (relation{t}
>>> REMOVE A) JOIN t.A. So generalized aggregates give it for free.
>>
>> Something I have been saying for well over 15 years: Give me adequate 
>> domain support and I don't need all the other crap folks want to throw 
>> into the database language.

>
> I've been puzzling over this. Is it a way of allowing user-defined
> aggregate ops?

Of course, and a whole lot more.

> And what "detritus" is avoided?

What detritus or "features" do we have now that one could more accurately and more robustly model with user-defined types and type generators? Received on Tue Oct 13 2009 - 17:26:06 CEST

Original text of this message