asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Comparison semantics for complex types
Date Sat, 30 Dec 2017 04:47:43 GMT
I have two questions. How would you want to compare two complex objects?
And why do we need to do a hash?

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 20:31 Wail Alkowaileet <wael.y.k@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should not call deep_equal implicitly when comparing objects,
> arrays or multisets.
> One reason is that we don't want to do hash join where the key is a complex
> type (i.e what would be the hash function?).
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Taewoo Kim <wangsaeu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Heri: I'm sorry for not mentioning your deep_equal function. Yeah,
> indeed,
> > we have your function. I checked BuiltinFunctions and found the function
> > named "deep-equal". So, we need to explicitly use that function to
> conduct
> > such comparison? If so, could you revise Wail's query? And it would be
> nice
> > if AsterixDB can call that function when it tries to compare arrays.
> >
> > Best,
> > Taewoo
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Heri Ramampiaro <heriram@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is this similar to the “deep_equal” function I implemented a while ago?
> > >
> > > -heri
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Dec 29, 2017, at 17:23, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Indeed - we need it someday!  (Sooner rather than later would be
> nice.)
> > > It basically needs to work like it does in languages like Python, I
> > think.
> > > (Cardinality and element by element equality for arrays, cardinality
> and
> > > order-independent equality for bags, field by field equality for
> records,
> > > and recursively through all of them.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 12/28/17 11:14 PM, Taewoo Kim wrote:
> > > >> If I remember correctly, we don't support deep equality comparison
> in
> > > >> AsterixDB yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Taewoo
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Wail Alkowaileet <
> wael.y.k@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Devs,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Currently we have an inconsistent behavior regarding the
> comparators:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In join, we allow such operation
> > > >>>
> > > >>> SELECT *
> > > >>> FROM [[1],[2],[3]] array1, [[1],[2],[3]] array2
> > > >>> WHERE array1 = array2
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In select, an exception is thrown
> > > >>> SELECT *
> > > >>> FROM [[1],[2],[3]] array1
> > > >>> WHERE array1 = [1]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Error ASX0004: Unsupported type: comparison operations (>,
>=, <,
> and
> > > <=)
> > > >>> cannot process input type array
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What should be the semantics for such operations?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> *Regards,*
> > > >>> Wail Alkowaileet
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Regards,*
> Wail Alkowaileet
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message