[elephant-devel] Fwd: some patches

[Robert L. Read]

Personally, I think the only sensible way to handle this problem is to
require the user to 
specify an ordering function.  We can of course provide a default, which
will be error-prone
but tend to work most of the time.

The function called "my-generic-less-than" which is in the source tree
now could be 
a starting point for a generic ordering.


On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 09:48 -0400, Ian Eslick wrote:

> Robert and I have had some extended discussions on ordering in  
> indices.  I think that all we really need to agree on is _some_  
> canonical ordering.  If we have mixed types in an index, how should  
> they be ordered relative to each other?  In BDB we have a C function  
> which implements the ordering based on the type tag and then based on  
> the type within it.  Are you relying on a pure binary sort in  
> postmodern?
> 
> Robert or I will get to submitting that patch shortly.  I have  
> recently sent in a patch to lisp-compare<= so we'll see if we had to  
> make parallel changes.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:50 AM, Henrik Hjelte wrote:
> 
> > I sent this message yesterday but I guess it got stuck in the mailing
> > list filter. Perhaps the attachment was too big. Since my
> > common-lisp.net user hhjelte does not have write access to elephant I
> > have placed the patches from here instead:
> > darcs get http://common-lisp.net/project/grand-prix/darcs/elephant
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Henrik Hjelte <henrik at evahjelte.com>
> > Date: Jul 23, 2007 11:28 PM
> > Subject: some patches
> > To: elephant-devel at common-lisp.net
> >
> >
> > Here are some darcs patches that might be of interest. I had some
> > problems with map-index on db-postmodern that made me almost rip my
> > hair of, but finally I made it to work again. The problem is that
> > map-index for a string value rely on the ordering in the btree
> > (continue-p makes use of less than for strings). The postmodern
> > backend relies on how the database backend orders things, which is not
> > always the same thing. Is it a necessary feature that b-trees of
> > string and objects are required to be ordered by lisp-compare<=?
> >
> > In the process of solving the bug I have upgraded the test framework
> > to use FiveAM instead of RT, It has in my opinion a very nice syntax
> > and some useful features to track dependencies between tests. I hope
> > you agree that it improves on things.
> >
> > /Henrik Hjelte
> > _______________________________________________
> > elephant-devel site list
> > elephant-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> elephant-devel site list
> elephant-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/elephant-devel/attachments/20070731/e6246da7/attachment.html>