Ian Eslick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What prospects are there for having a reasonable map implementation in > postmodern?
Surely the prospects must be good; it's not very different from what Lispworks' CommonSQL does with MAP-QUERY. > 4) btrees are lightweight in BDB, but heavy in SQL - sounds like psets > need a postmodern specific implementation. You need a table that > implements a many-to-many relation between pset ids and object ids. This is indeed a problem which bit me, and I find I need to spend more time than I had hoped looking "under the hood" to see if my decisions at the classes/api level map onto horrible implementations. > Thanks for all the hard work Alex! I would certainly to join in the thanks. So thanks! -- Please read about why Top Posting is evil at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting and http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html Please read about why HTML in email is evil at: http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/evilmail.html _______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
