- From: Nitin Mangtani <nitinm@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:03:04 -0800
- To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>, Michael Burbidge <mburbidg@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-ql@w3.org
Jim, Sorry for jumping on this tread late, why "Group By" did not make into XQuery spec. I understand one can use combination of distinct and aggregate function to simulate a Group By. But having a direct Group By makes life much easier for everyone (Customers, Vendors, you? and me;) ). Regards, Nitin Mangtani At 11:29 AM 2/28/2003 -0700, Jim Melton wrote: >Michael, > >I will not pretend to give an *official* Query WG response, so please >recognize that this note contains only my perception of the reasons. > >One of several major goals adopted when XQuery was designed was that it be >able to deal with queries on relational-like data. Several major vendors >of XML systems and of relational systems explicitly want to be able to use >XQuery to query relational data that is "published" in an XML form out of >a relational database. > >However, I don't think that this was the primary motivation for the >creation of the FLWOR expression. One very important attribute of SQL is >that it is primarily declarative in nature, not procedural. By that, I >mean that SQL allows a user to specify what characteristics the desired >results have, but not the algorithms by which those results are >obtained. That attribute is extremely important in several ways, but most >importantly in allowing query optimizers flexibility in putting together >"query plans" that operate specific queries differently in different >environments. XQuery's design is also based on the >declarative-instead-of-procedural-language philosophy, specifically for >the same reasons that SQL was based on that philosophy. > >That characteristic by itself is not enough to determine whether or not >FLWOR expressions can be translated to SQL or SQL to FLWOR >expressions. However, I have it on extremely good authority ;^} that it >is eminently feasible to translate a great fraction, possibly 100%, of >XQuery expressions into SQL. Whether or not the reverse translation is >feasible, I don't have concrete information. However, it would surprise >me if it were not possible to do so in some large percentage of cases. > >And, yes, you may confidently expect that relational database vendors will >implement XQuery processors that directly integrate with their >databases. Whether this is done "in an efficient manner" will certainly >be in the eye of the beholder. Some will undoubtedly put their XQuery >processors deeply embedded into their relational engines, while others >will provide XQuery as a layer on top of the engine, while others will >probably provide XQuery in middleware...all based on the individual >vendor's perception of its marketplace's requirements. > >Hope this helps, > Jim > >At 07:56 2003-02-28 -0800 Friday, Michael Burbidge wrote: > >>The XQuery specifications alludes to the fact that XQuery was designed in >>such a way as to be able express queries across various kinds of data, >>including relational databases. >> >>Does this mean that the FLWOR expression was designed to support >>queries that can be performed on relational databases? Was it designed to >>be roughly equivalent to SQL? Given that a relational database has some >>mechanism for exposing XML views on relational tables, is it relatively >>straight forward to convert an FLWOR expressions into SQL? Do we expect >>that relational database vendors will implement XQuery processors that >>directly integrate with their databases in an efficient manner? >> >>Thanks, >>Michael- > >======================================================================== >Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 >Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: mailto:jim.melton@oracle.com >1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: mailto:jim.melton@acm.org >Sandy, UT 84093-1063 Personal email: mailto:jim@melton.name >USA Fax : +1.801.942.3345 >======================================================================== >= Facts are facts. However, any opinions expressed are the opinions = >= only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = >= else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. = >======================================================================== >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:22:28 UTC