Re: Is relational theory irrelevant? (was Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL)

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:6oidnZwKgZJQryii4p2dnA_at_golden.net...
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
> > Thes numbers would help to the query front end to arrange query results
in
> > order. A user would focus his attention on the row ranked #1 first, them
> > perhaps perform some physical action depending on the row value, next
> shift
> > his focus to row #2, and so on. Doing the procedure in the out of order
> > might be less optimal.
>
> What advantage would these numbers have over the current ORDER BY
> functionality?

I thought you objected ORDER BY in the beginning of the exchange.

> Considering that the ORDER BY would still be required to
> guarantee the results come out in the order desired, I would consider
ORDER
> BY the required feature.

Given that it would be a no-brainer for the query front end to add rank, maybe.

Consider a rank within a group, however.

> What
> advantage to the logical model does the rank offer that is not offered by
> other logical constructs that already exist?

I can join 2 tables by rank? "How many top 10 contenders switched the ranks between 2002 and 2003"? Rank in the competition event database is not necessarily stored, as it might be redundant if there is a physical metrics. Received on Fri Nov 14 2003 - 21:22:56 CET