Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: choice of representation - was paths & lookups & change

From: atruter:labyrinth:au at: 24-Oct-2003 19:23

Hi Brett, a topic near and dear to me ;) For me, I find the model I choose is impacted by: - data structure - volume - time [development] - performance requirements - whether the data is static / dynamic For key / value pairs I might use: states: ["VIC" "Victoria" "NSW" "New South Wales"] select states "NSW" or states: [VIC "Victoria" NSW "New South Wales"] states/NSW The first form being usefull in conjunction with parse, eg. ini: parse read %settings.ini "=" For large key / value sets I might use hash! instead of block! If the data takes the form of key/values I tend to use composed objects such as: attributes: context do has [spec][ spec: make block! 1024 foreach [attribute t w] load %Database/Attributes.dat [ insert tail spec compose/only/deep [ (to-set-word attribute) context [type: (t) width: (w) used: 0] ] ] spec ] For large amounts of data (100,000+ records), I try to express / represent the data as tables of columns and rows (I'm an RDBMS guy after all ;) ). I also try to store as much meta-data in the file-system as I can, for example, I may have a file like the following: /c/rSQL/Contacts/Name.s24 which tells me that the "Contacts" table has a "string" column of 24 characters width named "Name".
> Another interesting line of discussion would be on > useful REBOL idioms when programming a REBOL app to talk SQL.
Understatement! Having spent the last year [on and off] designing a REBOL RDBMS, I can assure you that there is more to it than will fit in a quick email reply (I am writing my "thesis" [ie. documentation] on my REBOL RDBMS design as we speak). ;) An interesting question that this raises: Is it better to have a SQL parser or a SQL dialect? Regards, Ashley