Genetic string searches Re: VChar vs VText

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 11/30/05 4:57 PM, "Ed Kleban" <Ed at Kleban.com> wrote:

> Well, I'd be thrilled if this were true, but I can't find any info about
> this anywhere in the Kernel, V4RB Reference, or SQL_2 manuals.
> 
> Several times in the past I've searched for "bit", which turns up nothing in
> these documents except "bitset" of course.   Searching for "xor" does indeed
> take me to the "Logical Operators" section of the SQL manual on page
> VSQL-76, however the Not, And, Xor, and OR operators defined there are all
> defined in terms of strictly boolean values defined as 0 = false or non-zero
> = true.  I.e. the description for "OR" is: " Returns 1 if any operand is
> non-zero, otherwise returns 0. "   This implies to me that these are not
> bitwise functions, but treat an entire ULong as a single binary value with
> 31 wasted bits.
> 
> I hadn't thought to search for "&", but all that does is lead me to the "&&"
> operator which is an abbreviation for Logical "AND" defined as: " Returns 1
> if all operands are non-zero, otherwise returns 0. "
> 
> Actually, I'm unable to find nuch info at all in the manuals about
> calculated fields.  There are a dozen references or so desrcibing how
> certain things work or not in the case of a calculated field, but nowhere
> have I found a description of usage, available operators, and limitations
> for making these work.  Is there perhaps some other SQL reference work you
> could refer me to that does?

All available methods and operators are descibed in the ValentinaSQL.pdf
Check it 

    sin, cos, ..
    concat, ... Trim ...


> As far as boolean fields go, this is not really a solution. I'm not looking
> for a way to create 16 separate single-bit boolean fields that I write
> complex separate logic for in RB methods that operate on returned values or
> with calculated field methods with long involved code.  I'm looking for a
> fast bitwise operation that can perform 32 parallel bit comparisons with a
> single "&" operator and move on to check the next record.
> 
> That make sense?  Or am I really missing something here?

You should not create 16 calculated fields.

You can change formula on the fly.
If this field is not indexed, than change is ZERO time.


-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]