On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 6/24/11 10:04 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> The reverse index has no duplicate keys. The only way to get a
On 6/24/11 10:04 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
The reverse index has no duplicate keys. The only way to get a
duplicate key in the reverse index is if the same entry (i.e. 37)
contained the same val
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
>> On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>
> The reverse index has no duplicate keys. The only way to get a
> duplicate key in the reverse index is if the same entry
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
The reverse index has no duplicate keys. The only way to get a
duplicate key in the reverse index is if the same entry (i.e. 37)
contained the same value ('foo') for the same (sn
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>> Note that it's true for the AND connector, but even for the OR connector,
>>> we
>>> don't have this kind of issue.
>>
>> Sorry don't understand connector? You probably mean the cursors?
>
On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
The reverse index has no duplicate keys. The only way to get a
duplicate key in the reverse index is if the same entry (i.e. 37)
contained the same value ('foo') for the same (sn) attribute. And this
we know is not possible. So the lookups against the re
On 6/24/11 9:51 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Note that it's true for the AND connector, but even for the OR connector, we
don't have this kind of issue.
Sorry don't understand connector? You probably mean the cursors?
Sorry, from the mathematic semantic stand point, OR and AND are
connectors (A
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> On 6/24/11 9:40 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> as I was reviewing the Table interface, and the Index hierarchy, I had a
>>> bit
>>> of time to try to
On 6/24/11 9:40 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi guys,
as I was reviewing the Table interface, and the Index hierarchy, I had a bit
of time to try to understand this part of the server I was not comfortable
with. And I saw that each index is
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> as I was reviewing the Table interface, and the Index hierarchy, I had a bit
> of time to try to understand this part of the server I was not comfortable
> with. And I saw that each index is using two tables : a forward and a
Hi guys,
as I was reviewing the Table interface, and the Index hierarchy, I had a
bit of time to try to understand this part of the server I was not
comfortable with. And I saw that each index is using two tables : a
forward and a reverse table.
The forward table is obviously mandatory. It i
11 matches
Mail list logo
