Subject Re: [IB-Architect] RE: Classic vs. superserver (long, very very long)
On 15 Oct 2002 at 15:01, Jim Starkey wrote:

> At 02:05 PM 10/15/02 -0400, pschmidt@... wrote:
> >
> >We (royal we here), would need to rewrite the SQL compiler, not sure how
> much
> >work that would be, I haven't seen the code, and downloading the source is
> a major
> >drag at 48K.
> >
> It's doable. But you would have to download the code first (sorry).
> And you would have understand it (sorry).

Well my wifes uncle has a high-speed connection, but getting over there can be
tricky, even though it's less the 5 miles away -- very very very long story......

> >> Once you started, however, it would be tempting to extend the runtime
> >> data structures to more closely model SQL semantics, but this would
> >> be strictly optional.
> >
> >It's an issue of, might as well as, it's all ripped apart anyway, and
> changing some of
> >the data structures might lower the PITA factor, rather then doing
> something in a
> >goofy manner, clean up the data structure and do it the way it should be
> done.
> >
> Excuse me, for somebody who hasn't bothered to download let alone
> understand the code, perhaps you are a little presumptuous about
> the PITA factor? You know you're talking about my code here, I
> presume.

No insult intended, just in 20 years of working with computers, and usually software,
I have seen too many times where trying to bend new code to work with an old data
structure often means something doesn't work the way it should, and efficiency goes
down the commode. What I mean by PITA factor is the obviousl PITA of trying to
make a new SQL only compiler work with a data structure that was designed for

> While were waiting for Mr. O'Donohue to explain connection management
> in a hybrid multi-thread/multi-process server, perhaps you could
> explain how the engine data structure's should have been designed?

It was obviously designed very well, but will it work as well when we remove the
SQL to BLR translator and ask it to work directly with SQL? A few new data items
may be needed to make it work better, and some things may need to work different,
if we don't make that a possibility, then it will cause problems in the future.