On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Michael Bayer wrote: > Right.. So what should I do about oracle CONNECT BY, which is what they have > instead of WITH RECURSIVE... Consider that to be a different construct and > ignore it for now? Or should there be some approach that approximates > between WITH RECURSIVE and CONNECT BY transparently? The latter approach has > eluded me since structurally they are so different. I guess a literal CTE > implementation to start with doesn't prevent a later agnostic construct from > being created.
Well, the SQL standard points at WITH RECURSIVE which is more general anyway. W.R. is basically an inductive query loop construct (base case UNION induction step) where CONNECT BY only handles key-based tree retrieval, no? Also, basic WITH support (without RECURSIVE) would be much appreciated- that could offer more flexibility than FROM-subqueries and could open the door for W.R. Cheers, M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
