On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Greg Landrum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I used the operator == instead of =. It >> might even be worth considering using @=, since substructure and >> superstructure searches are @> and <@, respectively. > > Yeah, consistency is fine. > > I wonder if it makes sense to try being consistent with the usual > operators where semantic is the same; for instance, you search for an > exact string with "SELECT * FROM table WHERE column='string';" so I'd > be tempted to use the same "SELECT * FROM table WHERE mol='smiles';" > on molecular DBs. Likewise, searching for a substructure looks close > to the "LIKE" statement. > > What do you think?
I'm a bit nervous about that because "LIKE" could also have something to do with similarity. I think there some value in making the fact that molecule operations are being done explicit by including the @ since that also could help people to remember that those operations may be more expensive than standard queries. -greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Rdkit-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rdkit-discuss
