db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Question regarding DERBY-4208 Parameters ? with OFFSET and/or FETCH
Date Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:54:04 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> I think that this discussion has gotten seriously off-track. It is 
>> the intent of the standard that the offset and window length values 
>> be parameterized. This is clear from the standard language
> Hmmm, I thought the problem was that the standard did not allow for 
> parameters and that is why we were having this discussion. Dag said:
>
> On the contra side, we have the fact that dynamic arguments are not 
> allowed by the SQL standard for this construct, at least not yet.
>
> I have to admit I haven't had time to research the standard myself, 
> but am a bit confused. Can you resolve your statement with Dag's?
Other forms of parameterization are allowed by the standard. It is just 
that ? parameters are not explicitly included. The consensus of the 
committee members who discussed this was that this was an oversight, and 
no-one could explain why ? parameters had been omitted.

The ? parameters would be, technically, an extension to what's in the 
standard--an extension which is compatible with the standard and which 
clearly fits the standard's intent.

>
>> I believe this is a serious usability defect of our OFFSET/FETCH 
>> implementation. As it stands today, you can only scroll one of these 
>> windows forward by sacrificing the performance benefits of prepared 
>> statements. It would be a shame if this feature had to remain 
>> unusable until the next rev of the standard in 2011. If the committee 
>> approves some other language at that time, then we can implement that 
>> extension.
>>
> I agree this would potentially improve performance but don't see it as 
> a bug.  Hopefully the statement cache will help.
The statement cache does not help. Without the ? parameters, each window 
has to be constructed by a separate prepared statement. This is the crux 
of the problem.
>> If people wish to veto this proposal, then I would ask them to 
>> propose an alternative solution which makes this feature usable and 
>> which they believe fits more comfortably within the intention of the 
>> standard.
>>
> Hopefully it won't come down to a veto. Hopefully we can reach 
> consensus in the community.
Yes, please. I'm looking forward to consensus when I get back from vacation!

Cheers,
-Rick
>
> Kathey


Mime
View raw message