Mark,
All right, I see it better. If I were you I would try arithmetic methods. To take
your example, when you start with
10110011
it means
power(2,7) + power(2,5) + power(2,4) + power(2,1)
+ power(2,0)
What you want is nothing else than
3 * power(4,7) + 3 * power(4,5) + 3 * power(4, 4)
+ 3 * power(4, 1) + 3 * power(4,0)
... if I don't err.
In other words, if you consider your 1s to mark powers of 4 instead of 2 and multiply
by 3 instead of 1 each time, you have your expansion.
I let you write the PL/SQL function ;-).
HTH
SF
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: "Bobak, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:34:27
>
>Hi Stephane,
>
>I of course simplified the problem a bit. However,
>the bitmaps are actually
>artificial entities which I'm building up from some
>underlying tables and
>some clever indexing schemes. The problem is, I
>don't have total data model
>control, and the permissions and storage info are
>stored in two different
>tables. Through some clever indexing and views,
>I'm presenting two different
>bitmap views. The idea is I can do a unique lookup
>on storage, a unique
>lookup on permissions, and then AND them together
>and provide a resultant
>bitmap, availability. The front-end app will then
>use that availability
>bitmap to decide what options to present to the
>end-user. The problem is
>the heterogeneous nature of the two bitmaps.
>
>Finally, I'm fully utilizing the bitspace I have,
>because the 2 bits for
>permission represent two different (and
>independent) pieces of info. In
>the example you provide below, there is no way to
>express P1 AND P2 with
>storage. In other words, my permissions matrix
>looks like:
>00 - No permissions
>01 - Permission for user to acquire doc via email
>10 - Permission for user to acquire doc via on-line
>viewing
>11 - Permission for user to acquire doc via email
>or on-line
>
>Note that the bitmap is full, and storage has not
>entered into the
>picture yet. So, Storage will say either 0, not
>stored or 1, stored.
>
>I need to AND the permissions and the storage.
>But, I need to AND the
>single bit storage with two bits of permissions.
>
>Does that make more sense?
>
>-Mark
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephane Faroult
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tue 1/6/2004 5:13 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Cc:
>Subject: RE:
>Mark,
>
> This is what spontaneously comes to my mind and
>may not make a lot of sense in your case, but why
>do you need TWO bitmaps in the first place? Your
>second (Permission) bitmap uses 2 bits to store
>three states (no permission/P1/P2). This is enough
>to hold the STORAGE information as well,
> eg
> 00 Not stored
> 01 Stored with no permission
> 10 Stored with P1
> 11 Stored with P2
> I of course assume, and may be wrong on this
>account, that storage is a pre-requisite for
>permission. Otherwise I would use 24 bits.
>I presume that your bitmaps don't appear as such,
>and therefore whether you have one or two fields is
>pretty irrelevant to the end-user. It looks to me
>easier to understand and maintain that some
>Rubik-cube-like bit-twiddling.
>
>HTH,
>
>SF
>
>>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>>From: "Bobak, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:39:25
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Well, since I can't sleep, I may as well try
>>solving a problem.
>>
>>This is a bit odd, and I'm trying to think of the
>>most efficient way to do
>>it. I've set up some bitmaps in my app. Consider
>
>>we have documents that
>>we want to sell. In order to be able to sell a
>>given doc, we need to have it
>>stored in the vault and we also need to have
>>negotiated the proper contract
>>w/ the publisher. So, I've got two bitmaps,
>>STORAGE and PERMISSIONS.
>>
>>But, here's the hook. There are 8 different types
>
>>of storage, so I have
>>an 8 bit mask. However, for every storage type,
>>there are two types of
>>permission. So, I have a 16 bit permissions mask.
>
>>
>>What I'd like to do is take my 8-bit STORAGE mask,
>
>>say it's 10110011
>>and convert it to 1100111100001111. Note that all
>
>>I did there was take
>>each bit in the input mask, and make the same
>value
>>repeat. So, 0 would
>>become 00, 1 would become 11, 10 would become
>1100.
>> Does that make sense?
>>Once I've done that, I can take my STORAGE mask
>>that's now stretched to 16
>>bits, and directly AND it with my PERMISSIONS
>mask.
>>
>>
>>So, my question is: Is there a nice, scalable way
>
>>to take my 8 bits and
>>expand them into 16 bits, in the way that I'm
>>describing? A clever bit
>>twiddling expression would be perfect, but
>anything
>>that's efficient and
>>scalable will do. (The end product will be hidden
>
>>behind a view or stored
>>procedure.)
>>
>>Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>-Mark
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Stephane Faroult
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
