This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re[2]: Possible new key () function (Was: Re: Finding t
- To: "'xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: Re[2]: Possible new key () function (Was: Re: [xsl] Finding t
- From: Steven dot C dot Kienle at am dot pnu dot com
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:37:21 -0500
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
We should remember that early database technologies required keys to
be explicitly used during data access. SQL improved things, but it
still requires that someone define what keys are likely to be used
(via CREATE INDEX statements/constraints).
Perhaps this can be changed now, but I think a lot more thought would
need to be put into it before a workable alternative could be
designed.
Steve
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Possible new key() function (Was: Re: [xsl] Finding the
Author: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@icl.com> at Internet-America
Date: 09-01-2001 10:14 AM
> > In this case xsl:key will know in advance about all possible
> > operators and could build the indexes in an optimal way in order to
> > guarantee most efficient key() performance.
The more I listen to this discussion, the more convinced I am that SQL got
it right and XSLT got it wrong: keys should be used implicitly, behind the
scenes, when the optimizer decides and not when the user decides. Rather
than having new variants on the key() function, we should do away with the
function entirely.
Mike Kay
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list