-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sorting semantics #66
Comments
"incomparable" should maybe say "equal or incomparable". It says incomparable because an |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The spec for ordering by counting and column aggregations currently read (emphasis mine):
and
What is the actual meaning of the highlighted phrases above, and what part of the engine/ndc/db complex is supposed to make that judgement?
How can a count be incomparable?
While the result of an arbitrary aggregation could conceivably be incomparable, it seems like a tall order to ask the ndc to make that judgement, and if the ndc just assumes comparability and passes the compiled query to the database it will likely just fail rather than be irrelevant to the resulting ordering as the spec suggests.
If it's meant to be an optional behavior I think it'd be nice to mark it more clearly as such (like how the W3C specifications typographically emphasise when the words "SHOULD", "MUST" etc. have a normative meaning, originally from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt I believe)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: