db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mamta Satoor" <msat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Changes to comparable method in TypeCompiler
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:39:58 GMT
Thanks, Dan. This information was very helpful.

And thanks, Bryan, for always capturing different pieces of information from
Derby mailing list and putting it together on Derby wiki. It will surely be
helpful to others.


On 4/19/07, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org > wrote:
> Mamta Satoor wrote:
> > I think what you are suggesting is to move comparable method out from
> > the TypeCompiler and into DataTypeDescriptor altogether. So, the
> > existing code, where we use TypeCompiler to decide if 2 types can be
> > compared or not should now call a method on DTD to determine
> > comparability. This might be cleaner than stuffing collation information
> > in CharTypeCompiler but I am just wondering why was comparable not
> > defined on DTD at the very start. Why do we go through TypeCompiler and
> > what functionality does TypeCompiler provide that DTD does not? In other
> > words, I don't understand the connection between TypeCompiler and DTD
> > and how they fit together.
> It's not that TypeCompiler provides functionality that DTD does not, but
> instead DTD has functionality/information that TypeCompiler does not.
> Ignoring the "compiler" aspect for the moment there are two components
> to a DataTypeDescriptor, the underlying SQL type (INTEGER, CHAR,
> VARCHAR, XML etc.) represented as TypeId and attributes of the
> descriptor (nullablity, length, precision, scale and now collation).
> Thus
> DTD = TypeId + {attributes}
> Some functionality is applicable to a type regardless of a specific
> DTD's attributes, thus methods for that functionality can be declared on
> TypeId instead of DTD.
> Some functionality on the other hand needs the attribute information as
> well, say the display length of a type is a function of its
> length/precision&scale and its underlying SQL type.
> The collation changes have moved the comparable check from being only
> reliant on the SQL type (TypeId) to being dependent on the type's
> attributes (collation type and implicit/explicit). Thus the original
> location for the comparable method made sense, but now does not.
> The TypeCompiler/TypeId split was due to an early plan to have a
> execute-only version of the technology, this never happened as there was
> no demand for it. One of the benefits of a SQL engine is the ability to
> execute arbitrary queries, which would not be available in an execute
> only version. Code cleanup could be done here which probably would
> decrease the footrprint of derby.
> HTH,
> Dan.

View raw message