W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Sort criteria in Search Request

From: Adam Dickmeiss <adam@indexdata.dk>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:07:20 +0200
To: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Cc: ian.ibbotson@k-int.com, www-zig@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010917140720.A1588@indexdata.dk>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:48:51 +0100
> > From: Ian Ibbotson <ian.ibbotson@k-int.com>
> > 
> > The real need for sort to be close to search-request is, as the doc
> > says, for targets that need to be able to optimise the way they
> > work. I have a few SQL backends, and it's really inconvienient to
> > execute what can be a heavy SQL statement, only to have to
> > immediately re-evaluate it because a sort-request has just come in
> > and now we need to tag some order by clause on the end.
> 
> This is purely an implementation issue, isn't it?  Your server can
> implement this stuff however it likes.  For example, when you get a
> search request, do nothing but remember what the request was, and
> return a "success" indicator.  You need only actually submit the SQL
> query when the user either (A) sorts the result set (in which case you
> can include the ORDER BY clause) or (B) presents some records, in
> which case that's a great moment to actually do the search.

Well, you need to return a resultCount immediately. And that require
some work to be carried out..

-- Adam

> 
> 	``Mmmm ... laziness.  Is there _anything_ it can't do?''
> 	       -- Homer Simpson, paraphrased.
> 
>  _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "Good luck, everyone" -- Bob the Angry Flower after the WTC
> 	 disaster.  See http://angryflower.com/septem.gif

-- 
Adam Dickmeiss  mailto:adam@indexdata.dk  http://www.indexdata.dk
Index Data      T: +45 33410100           Mob.: 212 212 66
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 08:08:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:27 UTC