I repeat my question, what are the benefits of restricting array rank to be ≤ 63 ?
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:28 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > 'May be'. Have you actually implemented it? > > I find it very hard to believe that a J sparse array would be the best > choice for any database. It seems to me to: > > * take lots of memory per value > * have limited or inefficient queries > * be very slow for updates, as the entire table must be copied > > Please prove me wrong. > > Henry Rich > > On 4/5/2021 10:04 PM, Igor Zhuravlov wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2021, 11:52 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I propose that the maximum value for a rank, whether of a verb or a > >> noun, will be 63. Minimum verb rank will be _63. > >> > >> You got a problem with that? > > A database in J may be implemented as a sparse boolean orthotope where > each > > axis corresponds to some attribute (field, column of relational table), > and > > value 1 ("true") marks tuple [1]. > > > > A restriction proposed will limit a number of attributes to <64 for this > > application. It would be sad but not fatal. I'd prefer to have this limit > > larger, say, O(1e5). > > > > References: > > [1] http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2000-February/003102.html > > Jforum: Sparse Array as Database ? > > Roger Hui > > Thu Feb 10 19:06:50 HKT 2000 > > > > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
