Re: Are there any sample DBs with content to load ?

On Feb 21, 1:09 pm, "Steve Howard" <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:37 pm, "joel garry" <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, I always find questions like the OP's kind of ironic. A
> user wants to learn SQL and PLSQL, but doesn't want to write SQL
> statements to create table structures, load data, etc.
>
> IMHO, the exercise of writing loops to load arbitrary data to a table
> for which I typed "CREATE TABLE..." is worth it by itself.
>

I half-agree, half-disagree.

To really get good, you have to be able to reel this stuff off. No doubt that lots of typing in these commands over and over until you can think more globally while typing details helps that. Personally I've never done that with PL/SQL, and it certainly hurts me. Fortunately I don't have to do much PL/SQL, and can usually handle the mundane stuff that comes my way. Obviously, I don't have the sort of work that requires more than "hey, go read that Kyte book" or "what was that built-in syntax again?" But I certainly won't get any such work, either, and don't recommend anyone avoid the experience these days. I started on R databases before it was entirely settled that SQL would be the main data interchange language, so I have that multilanguage  nonprocedural mind-expansion instead. In practical terms, that means I get stuck doing all the weird stuff everyone else runs away from, like 4GL's and schizoid ancient/modern apps.

For real newbies, they need to bootstrap themselves into the basic SQL mindset, and it makes sense for them to be given a working environment. Creating their own tables and data are a next step. But don't forget, it takes many people a while to understand they have to think in terms of sets, so it becomes important to _get away_ from thinking in terms of loop constructs until that sinks in. At least, that's what I always found when trying to get things across to people, it may not apply to the younger generations - but then again, how many times have we attributed people trying to code in loops when they should be non-procedural to... other db architectures? I still see people have trouble with the mishmash of procedural and non-procedural constructs that having PL and SQL together causes. I've given up saying that's a bad thing, though. (Note I've never been a teacher, but I've had to train/mentor people in work environments, and don't really have the temperment for it.)

And we all know people who are excellent coders and really, really bad typists.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
LUV2LOL - California vanity plate.