Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 à 12:12 -0500, Gregory Stark a écrit : > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > That's basically how the existing patch approached the problem. It > > > invents a > > > new type of join and a new type of tuplestore that behaves this way. This > > > has > > > the advantage of working the way Oracle users expect and being relatively > > > simple conceptually. It has the disadvantage of locking us into what's > > > basically a nested loop join and not reusing existing join code so it's > > > quite > > > a large patch. > > > > I believe our Syntax should be whatever the standard dictates, > > regardless of Oracle. > > Well the issue here isn't one of syntax. The syntax is really an orthogonal > issue. The basic question is whether to treat this as a new type of plan node > with its behaviour hard coded or whether to try to reuse existing join types > executing them recursively on their output. I can see advantages either way. > > As far as the syntax goes, now that I've actually read up on both, I have to > say: I'm not entirely sure I'm happy IBM won this battle. The Oracle syntax is > simple easy to use. The IBM/ANSI syntax is, well, baroque. There's a certain > logical beauty to it but I can't see users being happy trying to figure out > how to use it. >
I agree with THAT, it's clear that WITH RECURSIVE is more standard... but for the SQL developper CONNECT BY is a paradise... the syntax is clear and powerful... That's why we've chosen to developp our queries with that (using the connectby() function and the evgen potemkin.'s patch (http://gppl.moonbone.ru/) _______________________________________________ Ce message et les �ventuels documents joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles. Au cas o� il ne vous serait pas destin�, nous vous remercions de bien vouloir le supprimer et en aviser imm�diatement l'exp�diteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme � sa destination, toute diffusion ou publication, totale ou partielle et quel qu'en soit le moyen est formellement interdite. Les communications sur internet n'�tant pas s�curis�es, l'int�grit� de ce message n'est pas assur�e et la soci�t� �mettrice ne peut �tre tenue pour responsable de son contenu.