- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:20:51 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Hi Dan, Dan Connolly writes: > > On Mar 8, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:08:16 -0600, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > > > > I don't understand why sorting should compete with streaming - isn't > > the transport at a different layer than order? > > Er... no. The bytes coming over the wire (in the variable binding > results) > are ordered. In order to sort the results, you can't send one along as > soon as > you establish that it matches the query; you have to wait until > you have all the results, since the last one you find might be > the first one by the sort order. > Not really - a store can often achieve ordering on-the-fly by using indexes, so it matches the results in the appropriate order. Also note that since un-typed literals can be sorted in multiple ways (numeric, alphabetic) you'd probably want to consider putting this into the orderby syntax. Cheers, Phil
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 12:37:08 UTC