Subject: [xsl] Re: Possible new key() function From: "Dave Gomboc" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:13:23 -0700 |
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:14:30 -0000 > From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: Possible new key() function (Was: Re: [xsl] Finding the maxim un number of nodes) > > > > In this case xsl:key will know in advance about all possible > > > operators and could build the indexes in an optimal way in order to > > > guarantee most efficient key() performance. > > The more I listen to this discussion, the more convinced I am that SQL got > it right and XSLT got it wrong: keys should be used implicitly, behind the > scenes, when the optimizer decides and not when the user decides. Rather > than having new variants on the key() function, we should do away with the > function entirely. > > Mike Kay +1. IIRC, your Saxon is already implicitly building keys in some cases, and XSLT is still a relatively (e.g. to SQL) immature technology. Perhaps it's even early enough that W3C would change course on this? Dave Gomboc XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Usefull?, David Carlisle | Thread | [xsl] RE: SAXON systemid() usage. , Peter McEvoy |
[xsl] Usefull?, Fernando López Carba | Date | [xsl] RE: SAXON systemid() usage. , Peter McEvoy |
Month |