November 30, 2010 at 10:23 am
GilaMonster (11/29/2010)
Craig Farrell (11/29/2010)
"Sir, we're screwed, the contractor was right!""Well, under all that's holy don't let THEM know that, peon!"
"Of course sir, we've made it a 'vague managemental decision'."
"Good peon. Back to the pits."
RotFL
Wacky thing is, development's complete, testing is complete. Everything's ready, now they want to sit and do nothing for a month.
Oh, I've seen that plenty of times. Someone upstairs got scared or just learned about it and started out scared. They'll calm down with lots of hand-holding from their minions and then it'll get deployed.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 30, 2010 at 10:30 am
I just finished catching up on the thread from my vacation time away. People had been talking about ISO standards and how much they cost. I know you can get the various ISO lists like country names, monitary names by country and the like for free all over the place on the web, is it not true for all the various ISO standards?
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 30, 2010 at 11:57 am
Stefan Krzywicki (11/30/2010)
I just finished catching up on the thread from my vacation time away. People had been talking about ISO standards and how much they cost. I know you can get the various ISO lists like country names, monitary names by country and the like for free all over the place on the web, is it not true for all the various ISO standards?
There are a bunch of ISO standards that are free, but the SQL ones are not. You have to pay for each part you buy. Given that, it's a bit hypocritical of Mr-You-Know-Who to be telling people they should code per the standard as if that standard were common knowledge, pretty much accusing you of being an idiot if you don't know this vital and vastly important standard. Oh, and since he helped write it, it's a pretty fair bet if you do buy the ISO standard that keeps getting harped about, he'll get a royalty payment. Don't know if he does or not, as I'm not the pusblisher, but still, puts a whole different light on his pushing of that standard, doesn't it?
Not to say that he doesn't have a point to a certain extent. Code will be easier for the next guy if you're following a certain standard that is well and broadly known.
Best to not feed the troll and warn off others from doing the same, I figure.
edit: Oh, and ISO-11179 that he keeps harping on is in several parts (about 6 as far as I could tell) and each part is between 67 to 200 bucks. With the 2009 revisions to certain parts being 200-250 depending on if you're a member or not. It's not a small amount of cash to lay out to get the standards.
-- Kit
November 30, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Kit G (11/30/2010)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/30/2010)
I just finished catching up on the thread from my vacation time away. People had been talking about ISO standards and how much they cost. I know you can get the various ISO lists like country names, monitary names by country and the like for free all over the place on the web, is it not true for all the various ISO standards?There are a bunch of ISO standards that are free, but the SQL ones are not. You have to pay for each part you buy. Given that, it's a bit hypocritical of Mr-You-Know-Who to be telling people they should code per the standard as if that standard were common knowledge, pretty much accusing you of being an idiot if you don't know this vital and vastly important standard. Oh, and since he helped write it, it's a pretty fair bet if you do buy the ISO standard that keeps getting harped about, he'll get a royalty payment. Don't know if he does or not, as I'm not the pusblisher, but still, puts a whole different light on his pushing of that standard, doesn't it?
Not to say that he doesn't have a point to a certain extent. Code will be easier for the next guy if you're following a certain standard that is well and broadly known.
Best to not feed the troll and warn off others from doing the same, I figure.
edit: Oh, and ISO-11179 that he keeps harping on is in several parts (about 6 as far as I could tell) and each part is between 67 to 200 bucks. With the 2009 revisions to certain parts being 200-250 depending on if you're a member or not. It's not a small amount of cash to lay out to get the standards.
Huh. If you have to pay for a "standard" it is automatically not universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't really a standard. If it isn't really a standard, it is just another management fad.
So much for paying any attention at all when he starts mentioning ISO standards. Especially since they seem to contradict SQL Server BOL fairly frequently.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 30, 2010 at 12:27 pm
If the "standards" have to be paid for, they are obviously copyrighted intellectual property. That means that following them puts you in a position of potentially violating copyright. That's a legal liability. Hence, we need to make sure, certain, positive, that nothing we ever write follows those standards, nor anything that could be interpreted as a derivative work of those standards.
Works for me! 🙂
(For my next act, I use simple logic, which Joe seems to need an education in per another post of his, to prove that black is white, so I can get run over at a zebra crossing.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
November 30, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (11/30/2010)
Huh. If you have to pay for a "standard" it is automatically not universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't really a standard. If it isn't really a standard, it is just another management fad.So much for paying any attention at all when he starts mentioning ISO standards. Especially since they seem to contradict SQL Server BOL fairly frequently.
The standards are what they are. I am sure Microsoft and Oracle can afford to shell out the bucks for a copy of the ISO standards. But your Mom and Pop SQL development shop isn't. Each company that makes a database program implements the standards a bit differently, which is why "portable code" is also a myth. Some implement to optimize some standards, others chose different standards and this is what differentiates Oracle from MSSQL and MYSQL, etc.
In a perfect world, everyone would be using the standard. Last I knew, this planet is still an "almost" planet. (i.e., MS almost implements the ISO standard, etc.)
When you look at it from that perspective, it becomes easier to pick out the things that Celko says that are actually relevant and ignore the rest of it. He isn't an idiot, just has colored glasses on that are pretty thick that he refuses to take off.
-- Kit
November 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Kit G (11/30/2010)
Stefan Krzywicki (11/30/2010)
Huh. If you have to pay for a "standard" it is automatically not universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't really a standard. If it isn't really a standard, it is just another management fad.So much for paying any attention at all when he starts mentioning ISO standards. Especially since they seem to contradict SQL Server BOL fairly frequently.
The standards are what they are. I am sure Microsoft and Oracle can afford to shell out the bucks for a copy of the ISO standards. But your Mom and Pop SQL development shop isn't. Each company that makes a database program implements the standards a bit differently, which is why "portable code" is also a myth. Some implement to optimize some standards, others chose different standards and this is what differentiates Oracle from MSSQL and MYSQL, etc.
In a perfect world, everyone would be using the standard. Last I knew, this planet is still an "almost" planet. (i.e., MS almost implements the ISO standard, etc.)
When you look at it from that perspective, it becomes easier to pick out the things that Celko says that are actually relevant and ignore the rest of it. He isn't an idiot, just has colored glasses on that are pretty thick that he refuses to take off.
Well, that and he yells at anyone that isn't also looking through his glasses or might need assistance.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
November 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I just saw a request for a beginner "how to back up and restore your databases to keep them safe" presentation.
My guess is this is one that should get written, and run for everyone regularly.
November 30, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Joe's pulled out his usual example over here: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1026791-392-1.aspx (please don't take that thread out of control. So far it's polite)
Before I reply to his assertions, I'd like an opinion here.
If you had to write a query with this kind of 'join', would you be happy with the design of that database?
SELECT ..
FROM T1, T2, T3
WHERE T1.a BETWEEN T2.b AND T3.c;
Honestly, if that was the only 'join' between three tables I'd be seriously questioning the design of the DB and intent of the query.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
November 30, 2010 at 2:14 pm
GilaMonster (11/30/2010)
Joe's pulled out his usual example over here: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1026791-392-1.aspx (please don't take that thread out of control. So far it's polite)Before I reply to his assertions, I'd like an opinion here.
If you had to write a query with this kind of 'join', would you be happy with the design of that database?
SELECT ..FROM T1, T2, T3
WHERE T1.a BETWEEN T2.b AND T3.c;
Honestly, if that was the only 'join' between three tables I'd be seriously questioning the design of the DB and intent of the query.
If I saw that join I would question the design. I'm still not sure about the number of records this might returned.
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
November 30, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I'm with Alvin. I'd question the design.
November 30, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Alvin Ramard (11/30/2010)
I'm still not sure about the number of records this might returned.
Who knows? Unless I'm missing something, it's a cross join between T2 and T3 (there's no limitation between those tables) and a double-triangular join between T1 and T2 and T1 and T3.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
November 30, 2010 at 2:25 pm
GilaMonster (11/30/2010)
Joe's pulled out his usual example over here: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1026791-392-1.aspx (please don't take that thread out of control. So far it's polite)Before I reply to his assertions, I'd like an opinion here.
If you had to write a query with this kind of 'join', would you be happy with the design of that database?
SELECT ..FROM T1, T2, T3
WHERE T1.a BETWEEN T2.b AND T3.c;
Honestly, if that was the only 'join' between three tables I'd be seriously questioning the design of the DB and intent of the query.
I've seen a lot of code written with the from t1,t2 and the join in the where. I've got 2 programmers that I support that only write their code this way. A couple times one of them has forgotten to include their join in the where and caused a huge cartisian join and bogged down the system. Granted it's a development system but still causes grief for the other developers.
I've never seen a sample like the one as above with the between. I'm not sure where it would be helpful except on a poorly designed system. Therotically it looks cool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Full Links:
KB Article from Microsoft on how to ask a question on a Forum
November 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm
GilaMonster (11/30/2010)
Alvin Ramard (11/30/2010)
I'm still not sure about the number of records this might returned.Who knows? Unless I'm missing something, it's a cross join between T2 and T3 (there's no limitation between those tables) and a double-triangular join between T1 and T2 and T1 and T3.
Not sure it's a full cross join. Records from from T2 may be excluded if no larger value in T1; and records from T3 maybe be excluded if no smaller value in T1.
hmmmmm, or vice versa? or, hmmmm, .........
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
November 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm
It kind of makes my head spin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Full Links:
KB Article from Microsoft on how to ask a question on a Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 21,991 through 22,005 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply