The T-SQL Paradigm

Question

The T-SQL Paradigm

Viewing 12 posts - 256 through 266 (of 266 total)

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

wldhrs SSC Eights! Points: 921 More actions · Answer 1

steve dassin (4/20/2009)
dphillips (4/20/2009)
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.
:blink:
Apparently in my haste to find an empathic voice I overlooked the true message this sardonic wit was sending me. Thank you so much for setting me straight. As for my 'pitch' perhaps I would have more success with you if I were hawking rice krispies or shaving cream. Ditch the pitch seems to be a popular rallying point here. Consider it my contribution of gin to your mill. But I do look forward to your insights in the future. I will give your comments and Pauls the scrutiny they deserve. 🙂
best,
steve
www.beyondsql.blogspot.com

the term is grist to the mill

please stop being a *****

i've -really- enjoyed this thread apart from your intrusions

Peter Edmunds ex-Geek

steve dassin SSCrazy Points: 2396 More actions · Answer 2

bitbucket (4/19/2009)
From Dataphor SQL RAC
Dataphor - Sql: what does Update..From mean?
What is really wrong with the "UPDATE.. FROM.." syntax?
This example uses MS Sql Server 2005
and
the D4 language of Dataphor @
www.alphora.com
Yields Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
http://tinyurl.com/27Z8PM - Is a redirection link taking one to
microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming
I find this rather limiting - almost to the point of making Dataphor useless
(for example D4 will not return
nor address a table with duplicate key(s) or rows).
The goal of sql is
performance oriented retrieval of large numbers of rows. The goal
of Dataphor is toward application development which is less
concerned with retrieval and more concerned with 'addressing' tables.
Further - The only reason for maintaining data in a database is to return data for other uses - thus dataphor appears not to be applicable to any real world useage.
Sorry but at this point I gave up ... and that is from only reading a wee bit from your site

Hmm..there are people who think all the relational theory stuff is nothing but gibberish. Who cares what a theory says. Sql doesn't care so why should users. Why make a db where each table must have unique rows and unique rows only? You seem to saying give me duplicates or give me death.

The battle cry of an sql server patriot 🙂 Well all can say is that when see a system called an 'RDBMS' if it supports duplicates it's a silent R. I suppose you couldn't imagine using a system without DISTINCT 🙂

You have a problem with not being able to access data? I'm only kidding 🙂

Sql is a 'plural' system. The often repeated phrase: sql is optimized for set based solutions really says it all. In fact you could say its optimized for big set based operations. But what about if you turned things around. What about a system that was optimized for accessing a 'single' row? After all

a big chunk of application development is just that, a single row for a customer or patient. An update of an expression that is based on single rows of data. It's not that dataphor can't process lots of data but you can think of dataphor as what sql would be like if the concept of a single row where of primary importance. A lot of relational ideas are like trying to describe a particular situation where at the end you just say you really had to be there to understand. I'm trying to get people heads 'there' 🙂

best,

steve

www.beyondsql.blogspot.com

Lynn Pettis SSC Guru Points: 442467 More actions · Answer 3

Mr Dassin,

You really have missed the point. Stop with the hyperbole and attacks on SQL Server (and all its cousins). Provide straight, well supported facts. Provide actual cases of the your "product" in actual use solving real world business problems. We can find tons of cases where SQL based systems are being used to solve real world business problems.

All of us on this site (SSC) use SQL Server to support our organizations, and are doing so successfully. You have not provided us with anything that would even suggest that your "product" is even worth investigating for use in our organizations, and many of us don't have the time or energy to "play" with your "product" on our own time. We have other things that we can be doing that will actually help us with our own career development or even just to spend time with our own families, or other things we do outside of work (for instance it happens to be soccer season and I coach a U-12 soccer team and officiate youth and high school soccer).

wldhrs SSC Eights! Points: 921 More actions · Answer 4

Lynn

Yes,

:-),

:cool:.

Mr Dassin

Editor's Note: Post offensive

Please stop trying to sell an idea that is simply a wrapper for somebody else's already hugely advanced and developed concept.

Peter Edmunds ex-Geek

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004329 More actions · Answer 5

Peter, don't be as bad as the cause. 😉 Lots of us got mad at him for all the name calling. And, the etymology of the word you're using goes way over the edge for a forum that's supposed to populated by professionals.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 6

I agree.

It was just about tolerable the first time, but not twice.

The first time I let it go because it made me remember the word portmanteau

I think I am right in saying that forum pages are indexed by the likes of Google^TM - so your choice of word may end up being seen by audiences you did not anticipate.

Paul

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

steve dassin SSCrazy Points: 2396 More actions · Answer 7

wldhrs (4/20/2009)
the term is grist to the mill
please stop being a ****
i've -really- enjoyed this thread apart from your intrusions

Hi,

Are you a messenger? If I'm wrong and you are more than that, well it came from my charitable side 🙂 In either case you could have picked a less deceitful way to get a receipt out of me.

best,

steve

steve dassin SSCrazy Points: 2396 More actions · Answer 8

Lynn Pettis (4/20/2009)
Mr Dassin,
You really have missed the point.

I get your point. I'll see what I can do.

best,

steve

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736183 More actions · Answer 9

This as gotten a little crazy here. I am closing this thread.

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736183 More actions · Answer 10

I've reopened this thread as it is being re-run.

Please keep the discussion civil.

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125561 More actions · Answer 11

I occasionally read posts where someone critiques T-SQL's "limitations" on the basis that: it doesn't support input dialogs, doesn't support ORM, or why doesn't it have better syntax for processing cursors, or why can't we pass parameters to a view, ad nauseum.

You guys need to first learn the basics of SQL and T-SQL. I'd suggest you first read a book by Joe Celko on ANSI SQL programming, and then read one of Itzik Ben-Gan's T-SQL programming books from cover to cover. Also, check out Erland Sommarskog's excellent blog where he provides design patterns or explanations for some of these commonly asked T-SQL questions.

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Celko/e/B000ARBFVQ

http://www.amazon.com/Itzik-Ben-Gan/e/B001IGQENW

http://www.sommarskog.se/

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

hjp Default port Points: 1437 More actions · Answer 12

One of the most prominent "errors" I see my fellow (and former) programmers do to our TSQL code base is: They don't care for - or don't understand - set-based thinking. They tried and tries to write TSQL queries like "one-thing-at-a-time" or "loop through a number of items" or "centralize basic calculations by extensive use of user-defined-functions written in C#" - like if SQL Server was a Java or C engine.

This results in bad performance and hard-to-maintain code. And then they argue that TSQL is a bad language. It's not. It's just important for the programmer to learn what it's good at and what it's not good at, and then pick the right tool for the job at hand. To quote a fellow on the net, I once saw: You can do a lot more with TSQL than it is wise to do!