W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Multi-value keys

From: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:30:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVI6Vhj1CKHwCl6g9ATQqmHcAIkR62C3p5CJPD@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
The biggest hole I see, even larger than sorting other types, is what
we use for string comparisons. In CouchDB we use the unicode collation
algorithm which is heavy but very well defined and works across
various localizations.

-Mikeal

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> I didn't take it as opposing at all. I figured you'd like it as I
> based it on your description of how you do it in CouchDB ;-)
>
> I just wanted to make sure that we nail down all the details,
> including the sorting order, so if you see anything wrong definitely
> point it out!
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Reading back over my email is sounds opposing and that wasn't my
>> intention, it was a long way of saying +1 and giving an explanation
>> for why we went with the same approach in CouchDB.
>>
>> -Mikeal
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The complex keys are how we do this in CouchDB as well. But, again,
>>>> the sorting algorithm needs to be well defined in order for it work.
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/View_collation#Collation_Specification
>>>>
>>>> Most pertinent to your example is how arrays of varying length might
>>>> be ordered, for instance range queries over your example would break
>>>> for [firstName, lastName] if an entry omitted lastName and arrays were
>>>> sorted by length and then by comparison of each item. This is why the
>>>> CouchDB collation algorithm sorts:
>>>>
>>>> ["a"]
>>>> ["b"]
>>>> ["b","c"]
>>>> ["b","c", "a"]
>>>> ["b","d"]
>>>> ["b","d", "e"]
>>>
>>> How is that different from what I proposed? I think that was what I
>>> intended to propose, but I might be missing some edge cases :)
>>>
>>> I take it that ["a", "z"] would be sorted between ["a"] and ["b"]?
>>>
>>> / Jonas
>>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2010 00:30:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT