- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:24:49 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve Harris wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:59:45 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>However, I've also noticed a couple of items in Red Ink that still need >>thinking about: >> >>1. How/if to record duplicates in results. (Section 2.3.3) >> >>When ORDER BY is given, the result format may record index="1", >>index="2" on the <result> element. (Side issue - "may" or "should" do >>this?) > > > I dont see the point to this really, but how does it interact with OFFSET? > Shouldn't the count start from OFFSET + 1? I suggest that the indexes in the result file do not relate to the rows prior to limit/offset - they are there just to provide an ordering on the solutions. Start at 1, and are sequential. Ideally, the result set should be in the order 1,2,3,... > > >>However when there are duplicates should it generate indexes 1, 2, 2, 3 >>where items #2 and #3 are duplicates? (A query with ORDER BY but no >>SELECT DISTINCT). > > > Strong "no" from me. Any numbering should be monotonic. +1 Whether the query processor has applied a total ordering or not should not be reflected in the results (if it matters, use <link/>). > > - Steve > Andy
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 15:25:23 UTC