How are options 1 and 3 different? They both say that truncation 104 is
always in effect.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: cql index definitions
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > Ray, I read Joe's message differently than you do. I read
> it to mean that
> > he wants the language to define truncation, not the indexes.
>
> Yes, that's how I read it -- option 3 below. (Option 2 is
> included in the list
> for completeness -- if you'll pardon the pun). --Ray
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:39 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: cql index definitions
> > >
> > >
> > > "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I might be willing to give on Completeness and
> Position, but not on
> > > > truncation. The users need a consistent set of
> truncation rules.
> > >
> > > Ok, it's time we addressed Joe Zeeman's suggestion (see separately
> > > forwarded message). Joe is suggestion that truncation be
> explicit in
> > > the query syntax. How do we feel about that?
> > >
> > > So there are three possibilities:
> > > 1. Implicit truncation, as in the original rule where
> type 104 always
> > > applies.
> > > 2. Truncation defined as part of the index, as in the
> bath searches.
> > > 3. Explicit truncation, expressed in the query string.
> > >
> > > Note that if we go with either 1 or 3, we will have to
> > > abandon the idea
> > > of defining Bath searches.
> > >
> > > --Ray
> > >
>
|