XMLDB problems: Difference between revisions
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Naming conventions == | == Naming conventions == | ||
('''Status:''' <font color="red">Open</font> - '''Severity:''' Not critical - '''Bug:''' not defined) | |||
What to do with all the previously created DB objects (indexes, unique indexes, sequences...) if their naming schema doesn't fit with the implemented by ADOdb. Drop/recreate everything? Leave it unmodified? Can we use different naming schemes for each DB. PostgreSQL one seems more formal, is it the way for Oracle and SQL*Server. | What to do with all the previously created DB objects (indexes, unique indexes, sequences...) if their naming schema doesn't fit with the implemented by ADOdb. Drop/recreate everything? Leave it unmodified? Can we use different naming schemes for each DB. PostgreSQL one seems more formal, is it the way for Oracle and SQL*Server. | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 18 June 2006
XML database schema > XMLDB Problems
Every section on this page will show important problems present in the adoption of the new database layer planned for 1.7. Each section will define the problem, its impact and, when available, its solution. Every section will include one line containing its status ('Open', 'Decided, 'Work in progress', 'Finished', 'Tested' and 'Closed').
Of course, fell free to use the Bug Tracker to follow the daily evolution of each one of these problems by adding one link inside each section pointing to the proper bug.
Prior to change the status from 'Decided' to 'Work in progress' the corresponding page of the roadmap must be modified, including all the actions/steps needed to solve the problem. Obviously, at the end, the expected status for each section is 'Closed'.
Regular expressions
(Status: Open - Severity: Critical - Bug: not defined)
Problems with Oracle (not available until 10g) and MSSQL (not available). Oracle 10g implements them using directly and one package existed since ages (Oracle 8i?) to handle them (owa_pattern). MSSQL can execute them by installing some stored procedures. Oh, oh, problems with some (a few) queries...
SQL Limit performance
(Status: Open - Severity: Not critical - Bug: not defined)
Analyse the impact of such SelectLimit() calls under SQL*Server, Oracle... because it's emulated by ADOdb on those DBs, because their lack of support for the LIMIT clause. As the offset parameter grows, ADOdb must iterate over more records to get the desired window and it could be a problem under long sets of records!
Naming conventions
(Status: Open - Severity: Not critical - Bug: not defined)
What to do with all the previously created DB objects (indexes, unique indexes, sequences...) if their naming schema doesn't fit with the implemented by ADOdb. Drop/recreate everything? Leave it unmodified? Can we use different naming schemes for each DB. PostgreSQL one seems more formal, is it the way for Oracle and SQL*Server.
