Subject RE: [IBDI] Re: Firebird 1
Author Paulo Gaspar
I sure prefer NOT having a snapshot and be consistent only with the
current state of the underlying data.

The linking issue you raise (data being deleted leeds to dead links)
is just one of the many reasons, of which I already pointed a few in
previous postings.

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudio Valderrama C. [mailto:cvalde@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:17 AM
> > It would have to select the whole query as usual, and then (in
> the case of
> > LIMIT (30, 10)) it would discard rows 0..29 and > 41 before returning a
> > cursor.
> >
> > It differs from middleware because you don't have to send the
> whole result
> > set (which could be a few MB in size) to the middleware (which may be on
> > another machine) just to get 10 records. Surely that makes sense ?
> Not for me. Second time, you do the same select and discard rows
> 0 to 39 and
> so on. For this to be coherent, you need either to keep open a snapshot
> transaction for every fetched web page (with a NEXT button, maybe) or to
> keep the original result set available all this time to be able
> to pick the
> following chunk of 10 records. This is the caching that middleware does.
> Otherwise, you want to recalculate again and again the same query and get
> different chunks of it, but consistency is not guarantee if the db changes
> in the meantime.
> Reflecting changes to the underlying db almost in real time
> (when browser
> gets next web page) and ensuring consistency cannot coexist. If I want
> always fresh data when looking at search results, when I hit NEXT, records
> 11..20 may not be the ones in the original search. If record 5
> was deleted,
> I will miss original #11 since it became #10 and if a new entry
> goes in the
> middle of #8 and #9 (due to the ordering clause), I will see #10
> twice, now
> casted as #11.
> Typical web search engines aren't paranoid about reflecting
> the current
> state of the net. You get several invalid links that no longer exist when
> you click on them. Typically, you submit your URL to the search
> site and an
> editorial staff reviews it. This process takes time but ensures more
> "useful" results like the ones delivered by NorthernLight. Other
> engines may
> be automated to process submissions but the result of the indexing the
> crawler does may or may not be available in a few minutes. A search engine
> integrated with middleware can recognize that Ann was looking for "cats &
> dogs" but that I was looking for "dogs & cats" and if none of us took
> advantage of some proprietary escape character to indicate that this is a
> literal string, the search is essentially the same. If the
> middleware caches
> requests for a couple of minutes before discarding them, chances are the
> answer is immediate without touching the db. A clevered search SW
> could even
> recognize that this is a subset of a still cached request for "cats" and
> filter it, assuming that A&B means both A and B must be present.
> A recent research confirms that there are known items that are very
> requested in web search engines (maybe there's a distribution like a
> Gaussian curve?) so I think it may make sense to do caching even
> if one user
> doesn't look for all returned pages; other users may do. Even in
> custom web
> facilities tailored for some business you will find probably some
> preferred
> items that are searched again and again.
> I will repeat that this doesn't mean FB devs should do
> nothing to expand
> its capabilities, but a thing that tries to be everything for
> everybody ends
> up being nothing. Enhancements usually try to honor generic and massive
> requirements (like being friendlier with the web developer) but it's
> unlikely the solution will satisfy all people that want the
> behavior exactly
> matching their app's requirements.
> C.
> Community email addresses:
> Post message:
> Subscribe:
> Unsubscribe:
> List owner:
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to