You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
PartiQL equality, as defined in Section 7.1.1. of 2019 spec, defines how to compare any two values of any two types, in particular defining deep equality for collection values.
It is clear how this equality is useful when comparing "small" tuples or lists that occur as elements in tables that are being joined, grouped, etc. on these elements.
However, in principle, it would also apply to "large" bags that correspond to whole tables in databases. It might not be a good idea to allow checking equality of those too easily.
Is it possible to define a boundary between "small" and "large" values, to limit applicability of deep equality?
A different aspect of this issue comes in #4, where prohibitive cost comes from algorithmic complexity of equality rather than data size alone.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
PartiQL equality, as defined in Section 7.1.1. of 2019 spec, defines how to compare any two values of any two types, in particular defining deep equality for collection values.
It is clear how this equality is useful when comparing "small" tuples or lists that occur as elements in tables that are being joined, grouped, etc. on these elements.
However, in principle, it would also apply to "large" bags that correspond to whole tables in databases. It might not be a good idea to allow checking equality of those too easily.
Is it possible to define a boundary between "small" and "large" values, to limit applicability of deep equality?
A different aspect of this issue comes in #4, where prohibitive cost comes from algorithmic complexity of equality rather than data size alone.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: