 | |
#51
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Limits -
07-25-2008
, 07:58 PM
|
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: For instance if we have relation: R := {w, x, y} where the tuples are: w := (a:1, b:1) x := (a:2, b:2) y := (a:3, b:2) then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R: {(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)} but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering: {(w, x), (w,y)} OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order? |
array, and certainly don't store them as a set even logically.
However, this is somewhat of a digression, because I was concerned
with the theory - whether such concepts can be integrated into RA, and
if doing so offers any utility. Ordering seems important.
#52
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: For instance if we have relation: R := {w, x, y} where the tuples are: w := (a:1, b:1) x := (a:2, b:2) y := (a:3, b:2) then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R: {(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)} but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering: {(w, x), (w,y)} OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order? |
array, and certainly don't store them as a set even logically.
However, this is somewhat of a digression, because I was concerned
with the theory - whether such concepts can be integrated into RA, and
if doing so offers any utility. Ordering seems important.
#53
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: For instance if we have relation: R := {w, x, y} where the tuples are: w := (a:1, b:1) x := (a:2, b:2) y := (a:3, b:2) then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R: {(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)} but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering: {(w, x), (w,y)} OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order? |
array, and certainly don't store them as a set even logically.
However, this is somewhat of a digression, because I was concerned
with the theory - whether such concepts can be integrated into RA, and
if doing so offers any utility. Ordering seems important.
#54
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: For instance if we have relation: R := {w, x, y} where the tuples are: w := (a:1, b:1) x := (a:2, b:2) y := (a:3, b:2) then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R: {(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)} but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering: {(w, x), (w,y)} OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order? |
array, and certainly don't store them as a set even logically.
However, this is somewhat of a digression, because I was concerned
with the theory - whether such concepts can be integrated into RA, and
if doing so offers any utility. Ordering seems important.
#55
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jul 25, 2:58 pm, JOG <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote: For instance if we have relation: R := {w, x, y} where the tuples are: w := (a:1, b:1) x := (a:2, b:2) y := (a:3, b:2) then "ordering by a" yields a total ordering over R: {(w, x), (w,y), (x,y)} but "ordering by b" gives the partial ordering: {(w, x), (w,y)} OK. But who the recepient of the ORDER BY output? I assume it is some sort of SQL client. Can it understand partial order? |
array, and certainly don't store them as a set even logically.
However, this is somewhat of a digression, because I was concerned
with the theory - whether such concepts can be integrated into RA, and
if doing so offers any utility. Ordering seems important.
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.