I have put some LOOKAHEAD to sqlgrammer.jj and
add some test pattern to orderby.sql.
Would someone review patch please ?
Best regards.
/*
Tomohito Nakayama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naka
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
*/
----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
> Sorry.
> Mistaken.
>
> LOOKAHEAD()....
>
> /*
>
> Tomohito Nakayama
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Naka
> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>
> */
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "TomohitoNakayama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Thank's for your reviewing.
>> Grammer ambiguity is very critical problem ....
>>
>> I will try to put LOOKUP() and consider about testing..
>>
>> #World is not simple as I wish to be.....
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> /*
>>
>> Tomohito Nakayama
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Naka
>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Satheesh Bandaram
>> To: Derby Development
>> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 4:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>
>>
>> I think the patch is a good start. But more work needs to be done. Based >> on a quick review, some of the items to be completed are: (there may be >> more)
>>
>> Grammar ambiguity. SortKey() has grammar ambiguity the way the patch is >> written. Since orderby expression and orderby column can both start with >> an identifier, this causes ambiguity. Need to rewrite or add lookup to >> avoid this.
>> Current patch doesn't seem to support all expressions, Ex: select i from >> t1 order by i/2. So, needs more work.
>> Add more test cases and test outputs to show changed behavior. You could >> add test cases to orderby.sql test that is already part of >> functionTests/tests/lang.
>> I do encourage you to continue work on this ...
>>
>> Satheesh
>>
>> TomohitoNakayama wrote:
>>
>> I tried to solve DERBY-134.
>> Patch is attached to this mail.
>>
>>
>> /*
>>
>> Tomohito Nakayama
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Naka
>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Derby Development" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>
>>
>>
>> Woops.
>> Mistaken.
>>
>>
>> That's "DERBY-124 Sorted string columns are sorted in a case sensitive >> way"
>>
>>
>>
>> That's "DERBY-134 Sorted string columns are sorted in a case sensitive >> way"
>>
>> /*
>>
>> Tomohito Nakayama
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Naka
>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomohitoNakayama" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:35 PM
>> Subject: About improvement of DERBY-134
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello.
>> My name is Naka.
>> I'm very newbie in derby community.
>>
>> I'm now seeing report for derby in ASF Jira.
>> And found a interesting issue.
>>
>> That's "DERBY-124 Sorted string columns are sorted in a case sensitive >> way"
>>
>> This issue seems to mean that we can't use complex item in order clause.
>> #That title was difficult to understand a bit ....
>>
>> Solving this isn't useful?
>> Especially when we manipulate DBMS by hand.
>>
>> What I think we need to do is as next:
>>
>> 1) Allow additiveExpression() in sortKey() in "sqlgrammer.jj". 2) Make >> OrderByColumn class to support additiveExpression.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> /*
>>
>> Tomohito Nakayama
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Naka
>> http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~tomohito/TopPage.html
>>
>> */
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2005/02/07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2005/02/07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2005/02/07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2005/02/07
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2005/02/07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
>
>
>
>
> -- > No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
>
DERBY-134.patch
Description: Binary data
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2005/02/10
