Posted by HS_Ted on 10/01/86 11:41

Dave ---

Please use English for us po' folk.


"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@acm.org> wrote in message
news:1141330867.939280.315910@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Doug wrote:
>> the jump where sql can be categorized as "primitive recursive
>> functions" lost me.
>>
>> Is there a practical limit on how levels of recursion SQL supports?
>> Does the SQL spec guarantee that recursion has to be available for say
>> 1000 layers?
>>
>> As I understand your logic, you are stating you can use declarative SQL
>> recursively to fulfill the looping role. I am questioning whether the
>> SQL spec guarantees say a million levels of recursion.
>>
>> Am I understanding your premise correctly?
>
> Of course there are practical limits to everything in finite state
> machines and real hardware. What is your point? That the resource
> constraints on cursors are inherently less onerous than on recursive
> queries? If we are talking at the logical level then that is
> irrelevant. If we are talking about real implementations then I think
> any of the major SQL databases demonstrate otherwise. Those systems are
> designed and optimized to perform with set-based operations and more
> often than not the set-based operations perform best.
>
> --
> David Portas, SQL Server MVP
>
> Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
> Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
> State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
> of any error messages.
>
> SQL Server Books Online:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
> --
>

[Back to original message]