- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 20:32:03 +0100
- To: "Babich, Alan" <ABabich@filenet.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Thanks Alan, suits me as well, as long as we can get the issue closed. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Babich, Alan > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:13 PM > To: Julian Reschke; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Issue null-ordering > > > > (1) Amelia is completely correct. > (2) We MUST specify a definite ordering for nulls in the collation > sequence if we ever hope to extend DASL in the future to > cross-repository queries that do ordering. (Trust me, customers really > want that.) Despite the fact that the SQL spec. caved in to one or more > vendors who didn't want to change their implementation of where nulls > sort, there is only one logical choice as to where null values sort -- > before all non-null values. That is because shorter strings always > collate before longer strings, and zero length strings are the shortest > strings of all. That is the way the DASL spec. is written. > (3) The only imperfection in the spec is that, as Amelia says, the > reason is inaccurate. So, to correct the imperfection, you might say > something like the following: > > "Nulls sort low, i.e., before all non null values. That is compatible > with the SQL92 and SQL99 specs., and it is essential for a future > extension for cross-repository searching." > > Or, you could just say "That is compatible with the SQL92 and SQL99 > specs." for the reason. > > Alan Babich > 714-327-3403 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:40 AM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: Issue null-ordering > > > > A long time ago, Amelia Carlson wrote: > > In the WebDAV SEARCH spec (5.6, DAV:orderby), it says that nulls sort > low, to match SQL92. > However, SQL92 and SQL99 both say "Whether a sort key value that is > null is > considered greater or less than a non-null value is > implementation-defined, > but all sort key values that are null shall either be considered > greater than > all non-null values or be considered less than all non-null values." > (words taken from SQL99, 14.1 <declare cursor> General Rule > 2)c), in > reference to null handling for the <order by clause>. ) > I would note that in 5.5.3 WebDAV SEARCH says nulls are less than all > other values in a comparison, so the DAV:orderby matches that > statement, > it just gives an inaccurate reason. > > Seems to me that if SQL databases are free to decide where to sort NULL > values (as long as they are consistent), we probably need to be just as > flexible in DASL (otherwise we can't directly map to a SQL query). > > Feedback appreciated, > > > Julian > > > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest.htm > l#rf > c.issue.null-ordering> > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > >
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:32:46 UTC