The solution I have is not terribly elegant from RML's point of view, since as I said before RML is designed for logical queries rather than numerical computation. It was not a terribly interesting problem because it needed just a single table with two indexes.
Hmm, I managed to program it in RTL as a single relational view on the original table, without doing _anything_ by hand. The correctness of this view is preseved by the library when the data is changed. In your case _you_ remove 1982 items. In my case _the library_ removes 1982 items. I think your solution is rather by-hand than RML-based.
Can you create a single RML query on the original table that solves the problem? Can you claim that using RML added a lot to your solution? Is it faster/more elegant/readable/etc. than just using STL directly?
You make a very fair point. This problem does not lend itself very well to RML's queries. RML's queries are much simpler, and therefore need to be glued together with C++. But even so, even these simple queries make it easier to access data in the table, and the test was exercising the library. But my line-count was 243 lines, yours was 214, so it's not such a huge difference. I frankly have no idea how I would implement that problem in SQL, but then this was a problem you chose to be very difficult to solve using a SQL notation. But that does not of course mean that SQL is a bad approach for other things. Even so, it is extremely interesting to see how far one can take RTL's queries. And it looks like considerable fun! I would like to test a database-style application. I feel RML's notation and design would be much better suited to that type of problem. Regards, Calum