Indexes

Question

Indexes

Viewing 6 posts - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Robert Frasca SSCertifiable Points: 6026 More actions · Answer 1

Steve Jones - Editor (12/22/2008)
I'm not sure it's even good English, and it's certainly not consistent.
I would agree it is important that we understand what we are talking about and use consistent terms. It's one reason I hate having so many acronyms that are re-used. DAC is being reusdd in SQL 11 as something other than the Dedicated Administrator Connection. How will we talk about that?
My point would be that BOL is our source of reference. Since it lists these are "types" of indexes, if we are to discuss this, we can't have people randomly determining when they think BOL is wrong and expecting everyone else to follow that logic. Some people would see these as types, some won't. So until BOL is changed, I would use that as the source of reference. You can comment and submit feedback to them, and add a note that you don't agree, but you can't use your own terminology outside of the only reference we have.

I agree that for the purpose of answering the question of the day that BOL must be the reference point, right or wrong, if that was the source used to provide the answer to the question.

I don't think that it is the only point of reference and I disagree that how people "see" it is important. This is a black or white issue. There are no shades of gray. There is only one correct answer. The view sys.indexes is a valid point of reference and I would even submit that it is a much better point of reference than BOL as it is a practical demonstration of the concept of what constitutes an index type in this product. If you can create an indexed view and that object shows up in sys.indexes with "indexed view" or something similar in the type_desc attribute then I will agree that an indexed view is a valid index type.

If BOL said that 2 + 2 = 5 does that make it right when there is practical evidence to suggest that it is incorrect? Does it matter whether some people might "see" it as correct if you factor in floating point rounding considerations or some other similar argument? That's simply rationalizing.

I apologize for appearing argumentative but this is an educational site and I think it's important to be precise. Besides, according to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, http://www.keirsey.com/ , I am a rational architect (INTP) which means that this sort of thing is important to me... 🙂

"Beliefs" get in the way of learning.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 2

You have good points, and I'm not discounting them, but BOL saying 2+2=5 isn't the same as them documenting something and applying a terminology to it.

Microsoft calls a role "database owner", but that's not necessarily correct as there is an "owner" of a database that is separate from people holding the role.

The documentation for describing things is purely a Microsoft decision and for some things we have to accept what's there. Arguing the semantic meaning behind "type" v "property" seem minor to me in that the layman's view of a "type" might have that as synonymous with a set of properties of something.

Yelena Varshal SSC-Dedicated Points: 34286 More actions · Answer 3

I totally agree with Ed V. and Hugo K.

I did not select Indexed Views as a type. As for the naming things: there is a Russian expression: "you can call it whaever, call it a pot, just don't put it in a stove..."

Regards,Yelena Varsha

David Benoit SSC-Dedicated Points: 34562 More actions · Answer 4

Hey, just to make y'all feel better, stop and consider what it must have been like for MS when they were documenting this topic. I can bet there were some pretty heated discussions in some meetings there. Woo Hoo! :w00t:

David

@SQLTentmaker

“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736494 More actions · Answer 5

My guess is that a junior intern got this assignment with no discussion whatsoever.

Yelena Varshal SSC-Dedicated Points: 34286 More actions · Answer 6

My guess is that a Senior technical writer got this assignment, created a TO-DO list of all types with the intention of naming them properly and adding a description later, but at some point got distracted by the junior intern that Steve mentioned.

Regards,Yelena Varsha