Hi Charles,
Okay, here's another comment from someone who hasn't really worked with
this material. I believe someone else's solution was to, essentially,
create a new object. What about that? Sort of like children/evolution - if
something like that needs to be changed, couldn't you instead
Okay, here's another comment from someone who hasn't really worked with
this material. I believe someone else's solution was to, essentially,
create a new object. What about that? Sort of like children/evolution - if
something like that needs to be changed, couldn't you instead create a new
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Gregg Irwin
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [REBOL] Re: dbms3.r 01
Can an object's spec block be extended, or
modified, after it is created?
Hi, yes it can
Hi Robert,
Can an object's spec block be extended, or
modified, after it is created?
Hi, yes it can:
extend-object: func ['obj-word [word!] 'word [word!] value [any-type!]
/local
the-obj][
all [not object? the-obj: get obj-word make error! No object provided.]
if in the-obj word [
Hello Romano!
On 18-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT Well. You like object, i like blocks. When i'll have the
RT basic i/o routines (the hard part) i'll write my own block
RT select routines. There is no problem at all.
That's fine. :) I'll support you in doing that.
RT 9/10 of my code does a query
Hello Gregg!
On 18-Gen-02, you wrote:
GI I think I would say that a block of word/value pairs (e.g. [a
GI 1 b 2]) is more like an associative array. Can an object's
GI spec block be extended, or modified, after it is created?
It can't, so you are right; but an object still seems the best
Hello Romano!
On 15-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT But i feel it ab-normal. I must extract data from a natural
RT container to put it in an artificial one which can be useful
[...]
Of course it depends on your data and your application!
Usually I use the relational model when I design the data
Hello Romano!
On 15-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT I did not try, but what i want is a unsorted collection of
RT all column of all records.
DB-SELECT only gives you the row-ids; getting all the records in a
block is not possible with dbms.r, as I've never had a need for
that; to get them as a block
I'v been away for a few days, now I have to play catch up and
prepare part two of dbms3.r dev. :)
Hello Rod!
On 15-Gen-02, you wrote:
RG Do you have a file format in mind yet? I would be more
RG comfortable thinking about functions if I could visualize how
RG you are thinking about storing
Hi, Gabriele
RT Yes but often we need blocks of blocks of data.
Actually I think my code got a lot better when switching from the
old block-based dbms.r to the new object-based one...
Well. You like object, i like blocks. When i'll have the basic i/o routines
(the hard part) i'll write my
Hi Gabriele,
Actually the relational model includes a name for the column;
other languages (PHP etc.) offer records as associative arrays,
and the thing that most resembles associative arrays in REBOL is
object!.
I think I would say that a block of word/value pairs (e.g. [a 1 b 2]) is
more
With so much good thinking on this topic I'm a little intimidated to make my
comment! But anyway ...
Scanning the posts I didn't see anyone point out that an in-memory structure
can look very different from an on-disk structure. Maybe it is too obvious.
If someone said it - sorry for the repeat!
Hi Pekr,
Maybe the block structure is the way to go. If you look at current ODBC Rebol
solution, it retrieves block of blocks (records), transformed or not, into Rebol
datatypes. I already have several functions, where I can map such record to
object - very comfort aproach, using foreach
Hi Brett,
With so much good thinking on this topic I'm a little intimidated to make my
comment! But anyway ...
Scanning the posts I didn't see anyone point out that an in-memory structure
can look very different from an on-disk structure. Maybe it is too obvious.
If someone said it - sorry for
Have you guys taken a look at 'kd'b by kx systems?
http://www.kx.com/
http://www.kx.com/download/download.htm
...it is lightning fast and tiny
Tens of millions of records--stored or streamed--read in a second. Fast
relational database (SQL92 with ODBC and JDBC), extended for time-series
Hello Romano!
On 14-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT 1) I like to have a function to update the db. Until the
RT funtions call all the changes should resides in memory or in
RT a temp file.
I didn't want to use any cache in dbms.r to minimize data loss on
crashes. Maybe we could use memory tables in
Hello Romano!
On 14-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT Now i realize that my Rebol databases are made of nested
RT blocks of variable length. It is not clear to me how to
RT convert them in a row/column scheme. Any ideas?
The process is usually called normalization. :) If you can provide
an example,
Hello Romano!
On 14-Gen-02, you wrote:
RT I can do it with db-foreach, but i think is slow to convert
RT data in object and then in block. I feel that block are the
Earlier versions of dbms.r used blocks instead of objects, but I
found that not practical. It's not useful to have to remember
Hi Rod, Gregg, Gabriele
The process is usually called normalization. :) If you can provide
an example, maybe I can try to give a possible solution.
Now i realize how it is possible (i made it tens of times in databases
programs :-).
But i feel it ab-normal. I must extract data from a natural
Hi Gabriele
I didn't want to use any cache in dbms.r to minimize data loss on
crashes. Maybe we could use memory tables in dbms3.r for something
like that.
I prefer to loose a session of add/remove/change than to mess a whole db.
RTdb-select dbname none
It's equivalent to:
Hi Gabriele,
I got your other response to my questions etc. All good points
that explain what you need well so I didn't reply to it. :-)
RG I am assuming (dangerous I know) that binary storage is an
RG option at all. If you want a text based storage system then
RG ignore this input. :-)
21 matches
Mail list logo
