|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why not reinvent the wheel?
At 06:33 PM 2/26/2001 -0800, Vasileios Papadimos wrote: >I am not sure about that (and this is true for XQuery too!) >One way of enforcing implementation strategies is overspecifying. >As an example, saying that joins respect the ordering of their inputs, >pretty much forces us to exclude hash-based join algorithms. > >Do we really care about ordering in this case? For "human-readable" documents, >certainly. For "data-oriented" documents we don't; specifying >ordering forces us to use a, sometimes slower, nested-loops join >implementation. Would an operator that indicates that order is irrelevant satisfy your wish here? Something like this: FOR $a IN unordered(//author), $e IN unordered(//editor) WHERE $a/name = $e/name RETURN <result> $e/name </result> I think this is a real issue. Let me check the issues list....yep, we've got this covered in the issue "xquery-unordered-collections", which I append. Does this cover what you want? Jonathan Issue 25 : Support for Unordered Collections (xquery-unordered-collections) Originator: Algebra Editors Locus: xquery Description: Does XQuery need features to add support for unordered collections? If so, what features are required? In the current draft, "unordered" is a property of a list. The user can create an ordered list from an unordered list by using SORTBY. The distinct() function not only removes duplicates from a list, it also renders the list unordered. Do we need a function that merely removes the ordered property of a list? How does the ordered/unordered property of a list affect the semantics of operators applied to it?
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||






