# 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>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:26:06 -0300

Message-ID: <4ad49c11$0$23750$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>

>> 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