[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3651?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mamta A. Satoor updated DERBY-3651:
-----------------------------------
Description:
Collation functionality(DERBY-1478) was implemented in 10.3 The functionality
in 10.3 and 10.4 currently has DataTypeDescriptor.comparable() implement subset
of SQL standard. More info on this can be found in DERBY-2876 and other related
task is DERBY-2875.
The current implementation of comparable requires that collation type *and*
derivation must match for the types to be comparable. According to SQL Standard
9.13, e.g. with non-matching types and one derivation of implicit and one of
none, then the types are comparable.
was:
Collation functionality was implemented in 10.3 The functionality in 10.3 and
10.4 currently has DataTypeDescriptor.comparable() implement subset of SQL
standard. More info on this can be found in DERBY-2876 and other related task
is DERBY-2875.
The current implementation of comparable requires that collation type *and*
derivation must match for the types to be comparable. According to SQL Standard
9.13, e.g. with non-matching types and one derivation of implicit and one of
none, then the types are comparable.
> Current DataTypeDescriptor.comparable() is subset of SQL spec. Enhance it to
> fully implement SQL spec
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3651
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3651
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
>
> Collation functionality(DERBY-1478) was implemented in 10.3 The functionality
> in 10.3 and 10.4 currently has DataTypeDescriptor.comparable() implement
> subset of SQL standard. More info on this can be found in DERBY-2876 and
> other related task is DERBY-2875.
> The current implementation of comparable requires that collation type *and*
> derivation must match for the types to be comparable. According to SQL
> Standard 9.13, e.g. with non-matching types and one derivation of implicit
> and one of none, then the types are comparable.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
