March 15, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Wow, I thought 2 points was generous. Nice, clear question that just made me read the T-SQL carefully. This is a good exercise for my students. Thanks!
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
March 30, 2010 at 10:24 am
Thank you for making my head hurt!
March 30, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Paul White NZ (3/30/2010)
Thank you for making my head hurt!
You don't like T-SQL much, do you? 🙂 Seems to have a bad effect on the condition of your skull...
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
March 31, 2010 at 4:40 am
Peter Trast (3/30/2010)
Paul White NZ (3/30/2010)
Thank you for making my head hurt!You don't like T-SQL much, do you? 🙂 Seems to have a bad effect on the condition of your skull...
Well, I like T-SQL and this one made my head hurt too: not the question, but the explanation! How can those constraints ever prevent any deletes?
Tom
March 31, 2010 at 8:10 am
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)
Peter Trast (3/30/2010)
Paul White NZ (3/30/2010)
Thank you for making my head hurt!You don't like T-SQL much, do you? 🙂 Seems to have a bad effect on the condition of your skull...
Well, I like T-SQL and this one made my head hurt too: not the question, but the explanation! How can those constraints ever prevent any deletes?
2 letters... FK... come on, you knew that... now you're toying with us.
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
March 31, 2010 at 8:23 am
Peter Trast (3/31/2010)
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)
Peter Trast (3/30/2010)
Paul White NZ (3/30/2010)
Thank you for making my head hurt!You don't like T-SQL much, do you? 🙂 Seems to have a bad effect on the condition of your skull...
Well, I like T-SQL and this one made my head hurt too: not the question, but the explanation! How can those constraints ever prevent any deletes?
2 letters... FK... come on, you knew that... now you're toying with us.
I don't think he is. A foreign key with a CASCADES or SET NULL option does not prevent modification. It modifies other data to "cure" integrity violations.
March 31, 2010 at 8:35 am
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)
Well, I like T-SQL and this one made my head hurt too: not the question, but the explanation! How can those constraints ever prevent any deletes?
C'mon Tom...let it go! Ron has already accepted that the statement is lacking twice on the thread already. It was a great QotD, with a correct reference in the explanation, but the one-liner was lacking. Overall, let's go with the positive stuff eh? 😛
March 31, 2010 at 8:41 am
Hugo Kornelis (3/31/2010)
Peter Trast (3/31/2010)
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)
Peter Trast (3/30/2010)
Paul White NZ (3/30/2010)
Thank you for making my head hurt!You don't like T-SQL much, do you? 🙂 Seems to have a bad effect on the condition of your skull...
Well, I like T-SQL and this one made my head hurt too: not the question, but the explanation! How can those constraints ever prevent any deletes?
2 letters... FK... come on, you knew that... now you're toying with us.
I don't think he is. A foreign key with a CASCADES or SET NULL option does not prevent modification. It modifies other data to "cure" integrity violations.
Yes, of course, you are right. I was only referring to the deletes he specifically mentioned 🙂 Integrity has become my new favorite topic and I hope to see more questions and discussion on it...
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
March 31, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Paul White NZ (3/31/2010)
C'mon Tom...let it go! Ron has already accepted that the statement is lacking twice on the thread already. It was a great QotD, with a correct reference in the explanation, but the one-liner was lacking. Overall, let's go with the positive stuff eh? 😛
OK, fair enough - but actually this time I was teasing Peter about his comment that you dislike T-SQL, not getting at Ron.
Tom
April 1, 2010 at 3:15 am
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)[hrOK, fair enough - but actually this time I was teasing Peter about his comment that you dislike T-SQL, not getting at Ron.
Oh right, cool!
April 1, 2010 at 9:34 am
Paul White NZ (4/1/2010)
Tom.Thomson (3/31/2010)[hrOK, fair enough - but actually this time I was teasing Peter about his comment that you dislike T-SQL, not getting at Ron.
Oh right, cool!
You need to stop drinking those new Starbuck sized coffees http://www.starbucks.com/blog/10113/starbucks-listens-to-customer-request-for-more-sizes.aspx
I mean, who really needs a 64oz. coffee??
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
April 1, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Peter Trast (4/1/2010)
You need to stop drinking those new Starbuck sized coffees http://www.starbucks.com/blog/10113/starbucks-listens-to-customer-request-for-more-sizes.aspxI mean, who really needs a 64oz. coffee??
I made the mistake of following that url to see if you were pulling our legs. And you were, there's no 64oz offer there. But Starbucks is offereing 128oz.
Now of course if they were aware of their worldwide markets that would show as either 160oz or 178oz in most of the world, since most people outside the USA won't recognize 128oz as a gallon (how did the US get its fluid measurements so wrong?), but of course Starbucks is an American company and doesn't realise that consumers in other countries may have slightly different cultures. So they don't realise here it looks like 6.4 pints instead of 8 like 3.4 litres instead 5?).
I guess that only the date can account for even 80% of a gallon as a cup of coffee.
I don't expect it will be repeated on 28th December for the benefit of non-Anglos (this sort of thing is not expected on 1 April where I am now).
Tom
April 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Tom.Thomson (4/1/2010)
Peter Trast (4/1/2010)
You need to stop drinking those new Starbuck sized coffees http://www.starbucks.com/blog/10113/starbucks-listens-to-customer-request-for-more-sizes.aspxI mean, who really needs a 64oz. coffee??
I made the mistake of following that url to see if you were pulling our legs. And you were, there's no 64oz offer there. But Starbucks is offereing 128oz.
Now of course if they were aware of their worldwide markets that would show as either 160oz or 178oz in most of the world, since most people outside the USA won't recognize 128oz as a gallon (how did the US get its fluid measurements so wrong?), but of course Starbucks is an American company and doesn't realise that consumers in other countries may have slightly different cultures. So they don't realise here it looks like 6.4 pints instead of 8 like 3.4 litres instead 5?).
I guess that only the date can account for even 80% of a gallon as a cup of coffee.
I don't expect it will be repeated on 28th December for the benefit of non-Anglos (this sort of thing is not expected on 1 April where I am now).
Thanks for biting... I think :hehe:
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
Viewing 13 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply