Anonymous user
Talk:Hash join: Difference between revisions
→clarification needed: updated status for the REXX code.
(added "clarification" queries. -- ~~~~) |
(→clarification needed: updated status for the REXX code.) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
Is Popeye's entry to be '''not''' listed, either because it has no nemesis, or because it wasn't in the 2nd relation list? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
: '''Popeye''' shouldn't be in the resulting relation because it isn't in the second relation. See also [[wp:Join_%28SQL%29#Inner_join]]. --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
(If not, I'll enable the '''if''' statement that bypasses the check for the above condition.) -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
: The above REXX code ('''if''' statement) was removed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Can the nemeses (plural) be listed on one line (as the REXX example shows)? To me, it looks cleaner, more succint, less screen (output) clutter. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
== Is identity a hash? ==
If the easiest way of implementing this is to use the identity function as the hash function, would that qualify? Why or why not? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 04:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
| |||