good morning; > On 2015-11-23, at 09:31, François-Paul Servant > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Le 21 nov. 2015 à 17:56, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In the current implementation, then results will be in the same order. >>> Well, as far as I know. I can't think of anything that will disturb it. I >>> think you realise the responsibility is yours; it is not guaranteed for all >>> time. > > on the other hand, a triple store implementation that would proudly claim > that it ensures the stability of the order of iterator results would have a > competitive advantage over those that do not … ;-)
on one hand, given the application described in an earlier message, the case remains to be made that the particular first-n-of-1000 matters. were it to matter, the order would be a stipulated criteria rather than that contingent on the storage architecture and/or query implementation and an order operation would be necessary. on the other, the dimensions of advantage remain to be defined. depending on the actual query, its implementation could involve parallel operations which yield non-deterministic result orders. in those cases, if the execution time is the dominant dimension of advantage, a stable, unsorted result would lose the competition. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | [email protected] | http://dydra.com
