January 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm
smunson (1/20/2009)
I think there's an inherent problem with "slapping a label on it", which does little more than both condone AND support the very worst way to go about things. The mere presence of a label isn't going to solve the problem, and since we're almost exclusively dealing with what GSquared referred to as sequencing issues, that's probably as good a label as you're likely to get.I realize that we all are made to do these things, but to borrow from a now (in?)famous phrase, putting lipstick on a pig doesn't stop it from being a pig. I guess I just consider it a top priority to educate those who make these demands about the true cost of continuing down that same road.
Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. 🙂 I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Steve.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 20, 2009 at 9:14 pm
jcrawf02 (1/20/2009)
but your customer sequence changes on the change of the hour?
No, it changes when the SomeType column changes regardless of anything temporal.
But, I agree with everyone else... I don't know what the business reasons for doing such a thing are, and we may never know.
I sure do thank everyone for trying to help with the brain sprain I've been going through trying to figure out some business requirement for this aberration, but I give up. I'm just going to leave it as a "mystery requirement".
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 20, 2009 at 9:17 pm
GSquared (1/20/2009)
Jeff, I think the basic point of such questions is that data sequentiality matters in some cases, and it's something that SQL (and relational databases in general) are supposed to ignore.I'd just call it a sequentiality issue, if you're looking for a name for it.
Depending on the specific situation, it might have different rules from one time to the next, and it can often be modeled using running totals type calculations, but it can vary for specific rules.
Thanks, Gus. Looks to me that I'm just going to have to settle for something like that.
Man, I wish I could find the original request so I could at least ask the OP. I've seen a lot of recent posts that come close to this, but none of them match this particular problem.
Thanks for trying folks.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 20, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Jeff Moden (1/20/2009)
Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. 🙂 I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.
Not be contrary here Jeff, but it's been pretty clear for about 3 pages now. It's what I guessed and what Gail's and most every example here has confirmed. It's "Insufficient Information", which you could attribute to either "Missing Columns" or "Re-purposing preexisting data" depending on how charitable you want to be.
To restate; business wants to produce reports (summaries usually) on data that they already have. But the data sucks for this particular purpose because it is missing one or more columns that it ought to have for this kind of summary/report. So they try to infer what they do not have through tricks of timing/order/sequence.
If you want to know the "business case" for it, it goes like this:
Business: Gimme this report that I think that I need.
DBA: I can't do that.
Business: Why not?
DBA: Because you don't have the data.
Business: What do you mean? I've been collecting this data for X years.
DBA: You have X years of crap data because you used the cheapest POS turnkey data acquisition hardware available in our industry. So now you lack the very data that you need for this report.
Business: Whatever. This is what we have, deal with it. If you're any good you will figure out a way to do this. I need it by Tuesday.
So let's call this problem "The Tuesday Report".
🙂 😀 🙂
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
January 20, 2009 at 9:54 pm
RBarryYoung (1/20/2009)
Jeff Moden (1/20/2009)
Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. 🙂 I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.Not be contrary here Jeff, but it's been pretty clear for about 3 pages now. It's what I guessed and what Gail's and most every example here has confirmed. It's "Insufficient Information", which you could attribute to either "Missing Columns" or "Re-purposing preexisting data" depending on how charitable you want to be.
To restate; business wants to produce reports (summaries usually) on data that they already have. But the data sucks for this particular purpose because it is missing one or more columns that it ought to have for this kind of summary/report. So they try to infer what they do not have through tricks of timing/order/sequence.
If you want to know the "business case" for it, it goes like this:
Business: Gimme this report that I think that I need.
DBA: I can't do that.
Business: Why not?
DBA: Because you don't have the data.
Business: What do you mean? I've been collecting this data for X years.
DBA: You have X years of crap data because you used the cheapest POS turnkey data acquisition hardware available in our industry. So now you lack the very data that you need for this report.
Business: Whatever. This is what we have, deal with it. If you're any good you will figure out a way to do this. I need it by Tuesday.
So let's call this problem "The Tuesday Report".
🙂 😀 🙂
Heh... don't hold back, Barry... say what you really mean. 😛
Thanks for the feedback... can I quote ya?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 20, 2009 at 10:08 pm
In the end, does the reason why really matter?
We had a meeting where we objected to a project as complete waste time and money, and were trying to talk our boss out of it. The boss stopped the discussion and said “You know it’s stupid, I know it’s stupid, everyone knows it’s stupid. We’re being forced to do this, so we're doing it, and let’s just get it done”. Sometimes it’s just like that.
January 20, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Heh, maybe I shouldn't post after midnight. But sure, use it if it helps. 😛
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
January 20, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (1/20/2009)
In the end, does the reason why really matter?We had a meeting where we objected to a project as complete waste time and money, and were trying to talk our boss out of it. The boss stopped the discussion and said “You know it’s stupid, I know it’s stupid, everyone knows it’s stupid. We’re being forced to do this, so we're doing it, and let’s just get it done”. Sometimes it’s just like that.
Ahh... The infamous "We all know it's dumb and wont' do what the person asking for it wants it to do, but uh... do it anyways" talk. Love that one.
January 21, 2009 at 7:29 am
Jeff,
Thanks for the validation. Barry did kind of get back at what I was saying - there's really only one reason for this kind of problem - someone somewhere either cheaped out or failed to think, and it often doesn't matter which, because someone else in a position of authority is ALSO choosing not to think and just demanding the report, without any regard for common sense (and just continuing to propagate the initial failure). Force me into putting a label on it, and I'll just call it what it is: "F.T.T." (it stands for Failure To Think).
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
January 21, 2009 at 7:36 am
smunson (1/21/2009)
Jeff,Thanks for the validation. Barry did kind of get back at what I was saying - there's really only one reason for this kind of problem - someone somewhere either cheaped out or failed to think, and it often doesn't matter which, because someone else in a position of authority is ALSO choosing not to think and just demanding the report, without any regard for common sense (and just continuing to propagate the initial failure). Force me into putting a label on it, and I'll just call it what it is: "F.T.T." (it stands for Failure To Think).
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
wrote:Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.
lol is that your new sig?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
January 21, 2009 at 7:43 am
Oops... Looks like I messed up the quote of Jeff's post... my bad...
Steve
(aka smunson)
:w00t::w00t::w00t:
Steve (aka sgmunson) 🙂 🙂 🙂
Rent Servers for Income (picks and shovels strategy)
January 21, 2009 at 7:55 am
While I am new to SSIS and SQL Server I came from a sybase world and did alot of such silly requests. In all cases the sillier the request the more likely it was that it came from the marketing department. It was basically a way for them to make numbers say what they wanted. by using a row number rather then a product id in there presentation they could talk about sales in Q1 without actually providing any information to there peers that would prove there conclusion was incorrect. I had to provide a row number rather then a product ID other wise it would apear they had changed the data. Long story short I have yet to get a request from marketing that used logic.
Dan
If only I could snap my figures and have all the correct indexes apear and the buffer clean and.... Start day dream here.
January 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm
smunson (1/21/2009)
Oops... Looks like I messed up the quote of Jeff's post... my bad...Steve
(aka smunson)
:w00t::w00t::w00t:
That WAS funny... I was thinking the same thing... "Heck of a tagline ya got there, Steve!". 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Dan.Humphries (1/21/2009)
While I am new to SSIS and SQL Server I came from a sybase world and did alot of such silly requests. In all cases the sillier the request the more likely it was that it came from the marketing department. It was basically a way for them to make numbers say what they wanted. by using a row number rather then a product id in there presentation they could talk about sales in Q1 without actually providing any information to there peers that would prove there conclusion was incorrect. I had to provide a row number rather then a product ID other wise it would apear they had changed the data. Long story short I have yet to get a request from marketing that used logic.
Heh... probably closer to the truth than any, Dan. The only thing you forgot is the "other" department that does the same insane things.... PRODUCT. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 21, 2009 at 6:36 pm
smunson (1/21/2009)
Jeff,Thanks for the validation. Barry did kind of get back at what I was saying - there's really only one reason for this kind of problem - someone somewhere either cheaped out or failed to think, and it often doesn't matter which, because someone else in a position of authority is ALSO choosing not to think and just demanding the report, without any regard for common sense (and just continuing to propagate the initial failure). Force me into putting a label on it, and I'll just call it what it is: "F.T.T." (it stands for Failure To Think).
Steve
(aka smunson)
:):):)
wrote:Truer words never spoken... it's a pig and I was trying to name the pig. I believe the label of "Procedural Mystery Code Requirement" may have to do.
Hmmm... F-T-Squared... fit's right in with ID-Ten-T. Sounds good to me. 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 94 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply