"EdStevens" <quetico_man_at_yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175891515.948587.226400_at_n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 6, 9:49 am, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "EdStevens" <quetico_..._at_yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:1175870668.939557.173360_at_y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 10:03 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "John" <acide.ascorbi..._at_gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:1175802637.291526.37550 @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> Is this the real problem or a simplification?
>> >> > It's a simplification but not that much. The real problem
>> >> > involves user_ids but this part can be skipped here.
>>
>> >> >> Is this something that will be run once or repeatedly?
>> >> > Only once.
>>
>> >> >> Is it possible for the same time to be in A and B?
>> >> > No, A and B are completely different data.
>>
>> >> >> Is it possible to have a B before an A beginning the sequence?
>> >> >> Is it possible for there to be multiple Bs between As?
>> >> > Yes everything is possible, A events and B events happen
>> >> > independently.
>>
>> >> > Thanks for being interested in my problem!
>>
>> >> > John
>>
>> >> I would NOT use SQL to solve this problem.
>> >> I'd use Perl or PL/SQL.
>> >> Treat Table_A & Table_B as ordered lists (based upon field of
>> >> choice; timestamp, ID , whatever).
>> >> You only needs to pass thru each list a single time.
>> >> Open two read loops; one on A & one on B.
>> >> Read 1 record from each list.
>> >> 1) If A < B, then read record from A.
>> >> 2) If A < B, then you found 1st hit & read record from A
>> >> 3) If B < A, then read record from B
>> >> 4) If B < A, the you have a hit & read record from B
>> >> etc. loop until no more records
>>
>> > Classic sort/merge logic. Something every cobol programmer learned
>> > the first week on the job. Something we often forget with all of
>> > our point/click/object programming. Sometimes the old, simple
>> > solutions are still the best.
>>
>> I did not claim it to be original, just effective.
>> Yes, I did learn this techique when doing Cobol programming.
>
> Didn't mean to sound sarcastic (if that's what you were thinking --
> the shortcomings of written communications, both ways). Just taking a
> mild dig at everyone else (myself included) for losing sight of the
> simple but un-sexy solution.
>
> As an unrepentant old cobol programmer myself, I miss the old days.
>
>
SQL is a great tool, but not appropriate for every task.
A hammer is a great tool, but appropriate for every task.
Better results occur when selecting the right tool for the job at hand.
No offense was taken.
I was just surprised that others are as prehistoric as I am.
Received on Fri Apr 06 2007 - 18:45:05 CDT
