November 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Well said (or written) Steve.
The QotD are a good chance to learn something and to test your knowledge. However, answering one is not required.:-D
November 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
November 12, 2009 at 2:40 am
I agree with Steve.
As primarily a developer (not database developer, a C# code monkey if you will) I need to learn a lot about SQL Server. I have a reasonable understanding of relational theory, SQL and specifically T-SQL, however, much like now DBAs have to code and be a part of architecting systems including the non-database parts I have to design database schemas and architect solutions including the use of SQL Server. Even if I do not currently use a feature, how can I choose whether any particular feature is applicable in any situation unless I have an understanding of what it provides?
A-har me maties!!!
Usual English humour with a Hungarian twist
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 12, 2009 at 3:50 am
Gary,
Does it mean that to be a developer(any developer SQL, C# or may be Building developer) you'll need to know something that might be irrelevent? like what is the highest mountein on Mars the planet?
because someday, knowing that might help you writing a SQL procedure to calculate the distance between sun's depest crater and mars's highest tip?
The Point here is the "relevance"!
If I am really working on something specific, I'll go and look up the resources related to it. No one will ever think to come to SQLServerCentral for "which is the biggest mammel on earth?" kind of questions! its not LOGICAL! because there are hundreds of resources available on Internet to cater information related to those.
well, I really appreciate the one who posted this question because answering that question indeed added something to me which I didn't know. I am thankful too, but all our concerns is the same: "relevance"!
thanks
November 12, 2009 at 4:17 am
The question is relevant to many people working with SQL Server. If that does not apply to you then you can ignore the question.
There is no relevance in the topographical nature of a planet or species categorisation to SQL Server (domain specific knowledge excluded - anyone working at NASA, ESA or others please respond!!!). The question is relevant to the geospatial features of SQL Server.
I agree that the area is a little esoteric, the question phrased in a way that it appears irrelevant and I would argue with the answer. All said though the area of knowledge is relevant.
I have yet to see a question on the folicals of simians - as a code monkey with a developing bald patch this would be more relevant to me than the examples of irrelevance you have supplied 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 12, 2009 at 8:16 am
Yup! Sorry to be the skunk at the party boys, but us GIS types are
movin' in.
We've done OK for years with one dbf file behind each of our GIS data
layers on our stand alone desktops, but as GIS becomes more and more sophisticated we are being forced into true relational databases. SQL Server being one option. I've just moved all of my 50-60 data layers into SQL server, running on the ESRI ArcGIS Server and ArcSDE platform. And having to learn SQL Server 2008 Standard from scratch is no small feat. Table joins, Indexing, Transaction logs, etc. Its all greek to us. So, give us a little time and allow us into your discussions. We need all the help you can send us.
The question of the day was quite a surprise. Thanks Steve for making us
feel welcome.
November 12, 2009 at 8:21 am
Dan, you're welcome, but I had little to do with this. Someone else dropped it in there. I have written a few, but my knowledge of spatial data is low.
If you think there are some good learning questions, please feel free to submit them (use the Write for Us to the left). It would be interesting to see more spatial stuff. speaking of which, I have the Apress book on spatial that I need to get back to.
November 12, 2009 at 8:34 am
Isn't this just another example of how the RDBMS model can, not always should, be applied to different problem domains.
Welcome aboard Dan. As you can see from Steve's response, whilst each of us may be considered an expert in a particular area, none of us are experts in all areas. This is why we come here to share our knowledge, thoughts and experiences. Oh, in case you were wondering, I am just (?) a community member here.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 12, 2009 at 10:26 am
Sorry - I might be missing something here - but isn't the answer wrong ...
The answer says - "There are 60 Nautical miles per degree of latitude, or one per minute of latitude. The length of a degree of Longitude varies from 60 nautical miles at the equator, to zero at the poles, so answer D would only hold true at the equator, not anywhere on earth. The answer is 'approximate' because the earth is an ellipsoid and not a perfect sphere, so there is some small variance in the length. "
Isn't it the degrees of latitude that get smaller approaching the poles? Hence - the answer would only be correct at the equator (ignoring the slight flattening around the poles..)
A definition of Nautical mile is - "A unit of length used in sea and air navigation, based on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle, especially an international and U.S. unit equal to 1,852 meters (about 6,076 feet). ".
Meridians (i.e. lines of longitude) are great circles, but the equator is the only line of latitude that is a great circle.
Have I completely misread/misunderstood the question?
November 12, 2009 at 10:31 am
Tony, I believe you are correct. I have already highlighted that they have answered the question if it referred to Sea Miles not Nautical Miles.
Hey-ho. I guess we will remember it a lot easier this way!!!
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 13, 2009 at 3:28 am
Thinking about it a bit more - it probably depends on how you describe what is being measured. Along a given line of longitude - measuring 1 degree of arc - is equivalent to measuring between X degrees latitude and (X+1) degrees latitude. Hence - it is the difference between degrees of latitude (providing longitude is constant.).
I was thinking the answer was implying measurement along a constant degree of latitude, e.g. from Y degrees longitude to Y+1 degrees longitude which does get smaller approaching the poles.
:hehe:
November 16, 2009 at 2:31 am
To those who are querying the answer, why not just follow the linked resource, oh, hang on, the reference is WikiPedia!? Double Fail then, first for the irrelevant question (this has nothing at all to do with the _operation_ of any database) and secondly for providing an unreliable source for the answer.
November 16, 2009 at 11:58 pm
mike brockington (11/16/2009)
To those who are querying the answer, why not just follow the linked resource, oh, hang on, the reference is WikiPedia!? Double Fail
Pardon me your prejudices are showing. In most things Wikipedia is quite reliable and compares favorably with other resources such as Britannica. That's been old news since 2005 when Nature did their study, and it's been confirmed by a number of other studies since then. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me
(http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=how+reliable+is+wikipedia) (and yeah the top hit is wikipedia itsef, but hey, feel free to ignore the article content and just wade into the 100 linked references and do the research yourself if you don't trust wikipedia to host a non-biased article on its own accuracy)
Yes there's been problems, particularly in areas where there's incentives for people to provide false info, such as charged issues like politics, religion, or biographical information on prominent figures in such areas. But in matters of science Wikipedia has a good track record, and unlike other sources that may require a subscription, it's available for all and hence makes a good reference.
So unless you feel the actual content at the linked source (along with it's 12 linked references) is for some reason WRONG, don't dismiss it just because it's wikipedia.
January 19, 2010 at 10:59 am
Steve Jones - Editor (11/11/2009)
It's a bit of trivia related to spatial information. If you work with data on the oceans, this can be valuable. It's not something most of us will deal with, but now it might stick in your head.
Stick in the head? No, next time I need to know I'll work it out again. (It must be a latitude delta not longtitude, since the distance is the same wherever one starts. The earth's circumference in nautical miles along a meridian great circle accurate to two significant figures is 22000 nautical miles (25000/1.151), is 1/(about 220000) full circles roughly 1 degree , one minute, or 1 second? It's one minute (60*360 = 22000 to two significant digits). End of story. So why should I want to remember the answer?
[edited to fix typos] [and again to fix a typo in "typos"]
Tom
January 20, 2010 at 12:54 am
To be fair, WikiPedia itself warns on almost every page that some of the information provides no sources, and therefore is liable to removal. Assuming that there _is_ a verified source, then just link to that, then there can be no suggestion that the page has been altered merely to win the argument.
If no source is given, then the information is no more reliable than saying "it worked for me" or whatever.
Basically, quoting Wikipedia is a sub-clause of Godwins rule, or should be.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply