firebird-architect - Re: [IB-Architect] 'Order By' Issue

Subject	Re: [IB-Architect] 'Order By' Issue
Author	Olivier Mascia
Post date	2000-12-20T16:33:32Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The more and more I discover about this, I understand a GDML InterBase would be far better tailored to my needs than a SQL InterBase (my needs require a robust flexible embedded engine - I just don't care about SQL itself - no need to ever port the code to any other engine). :-)

Maybe it could be very interesting to have a list of all the capabilities which were implemented back in GDML at any times, are still there, hidden in the current engine, and could possibly be surfaced again. I think such a list should be included (if not already done) among the things to consider for our next 'major' like '7.0'.

Olivier Mascia, om@..., Senior Software Engineer
T.I.P. Group S.A., www.tipgroup.com, Director

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Starkey" <jas@...>
To: <IB-Architect@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [IB-Architect] 'Order By' Issue

> At 11:02 AM 12/20/00 -0500, Leyne, Sean wrote:
> >David,
> >
> >First let me say that I believe that IB/Firebird needs to support the
> >TOP {x} syntax and your top 10/100 example is right on point and is a
> >real shortcoming for IB/Firebird, but...
> >
>
> It isn't a deficiency of the Engine. GDML and BLR have supported
> a "first n" clause since day 0. And on that unfortunate day that
> the code transfered to Borland, the optimizer used that as a hint
> to use index navigation rather than sort (I implemented the feature
> for dBase emulation).
>
> The original Interbase philosphy towards SQL was "we don't fix it,
> we don't extend it, we just implemented it." Innovation was done
> in GDML. The basic idea was that if wasn't portable, why break
> the SQL standard? We took great pains to allow "seamless" (gag gag)
> integration of GDML and SQL so that the portable stuff was actual
> portable.
>
> Borland's marketters (may they all have their lifesavings invested
> in Borland) decided to deep-6 GDML in favor of SQL. This wasn't
> completely unreasonable, since the world had bought the fantasy
> that SQL was a standard rather than a theme. But what they should
> have done, and didn't, was to move functionality accessible
> exclusively from GDML to "SQL".
>
> By all means invent and/or steal a "first" or "top" syntax and map
> it forthwith and directly into blr_first. Just remember that the
> more ughly the syntax and obscure the semantics the more likely
> that the SQL committee will bless it.
>
>
>
> Jim Starkey
>