Not directly, because only #where: is something for MagmaCollection's which returns a Reader. Depending on your indexes, you can use & (and) to maximize query performance.
But still nesting support is a very good idea so that MagmaCollections and Readers are 'symmetrical" w.r.t. where querying. To that end, it is something I have already been working on and am very close. Depending on whether you use "luxury" features like distinct: true or sorting on a non-optimized attribute, it must give you back a Reader on a *new* MagmaCollection. So if you then ask the reader for this new collection you can then do further where: query's on that.
But I should probably take it one step further so you can use #where: on a reader, good idea..
----- Original Message ---- From: Hilaire Fernandes hilaire2006@laposte.net To: magma@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:47:46 PM Subject: Re: Head on MagmaCollection
Chris Muller a écrit :
If you have not explored MagmaCollections yet you should know they provide Magma the much of the benefits of relational databases without losing its ODBMS transparency at all. Central to this philosophy is the fact that the where: syntax, for quickly creating subsets of massive collections is, in most cases, identical to
Is it correct to nest where: method? I guess it could be useful to speed up a query when your select criterias are deep in the tree.
Hilaire
_______________________________________________ Magma mailing list Magma@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/magma
Hi Chris!
Chris Muller afunkyobject@yahoo.com wrote:
But I should probably take it one step further so you can use #where: on a reader, good idea..
Just wanted to mention that I today stumbled onto such a need by accident. :) Currently it seems to return a MaClause or something btw. (using latest MagmaServerLoader from squeaksource.com/Magma - I presume that is a good rule btw).
regards, Göran
magma@lists.squeakfoundation.org