in that case the solution to your dilemma is as follows
query.addFilter("x", FilterOptions.LESS_THAN, z);
query.addSort("x", SortOrder.DESC);
then execute the query with a limit of 1
that is the answer you seek
in other words...
assume you have two intervals x1 = 4 y1 = 70 and x2 = 71 y2 = 75.
you want to find interval that matches your condition of x < 74 < y
add filter for x less than 74 will give you two results where x1=4 in first
result and x2=71 in second result
now sort these results descending so that x2 is the first result x2=71
x1=4
set limit of 1 gives your query a result of x2
you don't need property y
does that work for you?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 22:45, romesh soni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>
> You got a good catch. But the code which populates the data will never let
> this happen. If there is a pair x = 4 and y = 10, then there will be no such
> other pair which consist values between 4 and 10. there will be one and only
> one set for values 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and that will be (4,10). I hope my
> explanation is helpful. So it is guaranteed of having one solution per
> query.
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Tristan Slominski <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hey, so I've been thinking about the problem description... you mentioned
>> that there will ever only be one solution for the query, but that doesn't
>> seem like a valid constraint. For example, let x = 4 and y = 10, let x2 = 5
>> and y2 = 11. The value of z = 6 will result in two solutions.
>>
>> The reason I am asking, is that the contraint of only one solution
>> existing suggest a different mapping of solutions than the one you suggested
>> (not sure what that different approach would be yet, but it could be
>> something along the lines of enumerating the intervals).
>>
>> Can you guarantee the constraint of only one solution per query?
>>
>> On May 3, 2010 3:01 AM, "romesh soni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> the possible value of x and y can be 202000000000 and 203204206207.
>> do you see that it is possible to make such thing in 5000 element
>> limitation. Are you talking of ArrayList?
>>
>> Your solution is good for small list, but I am afraid that it will not
>> suit my requirement..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi romesh:
>> >
>> > Datastor...
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Google App Engine for Java" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine for Java" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine for Java" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
