On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 10:36 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
> Is there any reason that we can't store the byte-stream data directly
> in postmodern? We already have an efficient, mostly non-consing byte-
> array serializer with the following format:
>
> [btree_id][data_type][data_format]
>
> If you
Is there any reason that we can't store the byte-stream data directly
in postmodern? We already have an efficient, mostly non-consing byte-
array serializer with the following format:
[btree_id][data_type][data_format]
If you used a new table for each btree, then you could strip the
btree_
Alain's solution to the get-instance-by-value is the correct one.
It's an API issue, not a fundamental one.
That is to say if you know you want only one of a potentially
duplicate set from a slot index, get-instance-by-value should just use
get-value on that index. I implemented that func
"Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AP> Am I missing something really basic here?
>
> actually it's quite strange situation that you have *many* employees
> with same name but you want just one (random one). i cannot imagine
> why one needs this in real world..
I didn't say they have th
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 21:25 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
>
> RLR> Postmodern does exactly the same thing that CL-SQL does in this
> RLR> respect; the code was copied directly from the CL-SQL code.
>
> from original Henrik's announcement:
>
>
> The implementation is actually quite different
??>> I'm surprised you are seeing this difference on Postmodern, unless
??>> your input name is matching a large number of objects (i.e. s is
??>> large). I had thought that the native PostgreSQL backend,
??>> postmodern,
??>> fixed the linear cost problem of CL-SQL indices and provides the
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 16:16 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> AP> Am I missing something really basic here?
>
> actually it's quite strange situation that you have *many* employees with
> same name but you want just one (random one). i cannot imagine why one needs
> this in real world..
>
> or you'
AP> Am I missing something really basic here?
actually it's quite strange situation that you have *many* employees with
same name but you want just one (random one). i cannot imagine why one needs
this in real world..
or you're saying that all have different names, but it still does consing?
