Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance (was: Why all the max length constraints?)

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
> > dawn wrote:
> > > If people want to tell me how ignorant I am, I don't
> > > mind agreeing.
>
> Are you honestly sure about that?

Yes.
<snip>
> > > Do you have an example of something that I have said I
> > > do not know that EVERY person who has been in the
> > > software development profession for a
> > > quarter of a century does know or should know?
>
> Yes, this comes to mind:

OK, so you have a clear reasoned answer to my question then?

> > > I can't think of any reason why MV systems would be
> > > faster if there were max length constraints in the DBMS,
> > > for example.
>
> The performance advantages of size constraints is
> fundamental.

I believe I clarified by saying that my question and this statement were about the same thing -- max length constraints on attribute values.

> I think any computer science curriculum would
> teach this. And thus isn't this something EVERY software
> development professional should know?

That attributes specified to every type of DBMS must have max length constraints for performance reasons? That DBMS developers (those who write DBMS software) have no choice but to write software that requires or performs significantly better if there are max length constraints on attributes? Are you absolutely sure that hash tables with attribute values in delimited strings would perform better if there were individual max length constraints for each individual attribute, for example? Does it depend on the implementation of the DBMS as to whether those particular constraint specifications provide much, if any, assist to the performance?

> And if you did miss
> this fundamental concept,

Then I missed it in my own reading or on the job, which is where almost all of my CS education has been, which means that it was not in an area I cared about before but do now.

> no problem. Just admit it.

How many times must I do that. I will definitely admit that I did not before I wrote this and do not now understand why a DBMS must be written so that max length constraints on attributes are important for its performance. I think I have even seen a counter-example.

> Live up
> to your "I don't mind agreeing" claim. So you missed a core
> concept, no problem, it happens. It's good that you can pick
> it up here and now. Admit and accept your ignorance so you
> learn and move on. It is cathartic, it feels good, try it.

I'm ignorant. I asked a question, knowing it was a question from ignorance. I have not yet felt enlighted, however. I am sorry to be so dense, but could you tell me if and why those implementing DBMS's that stem from the RM either tend to or always write the DBMS tools so that it is advantageous for optimization to know the individual max lengths of the attributes?

Is it a correct observation and, if so, do you know why it is the case that DBMS's developed from other models are more likely to (but certainly don't always) provide tools where the specification of a max length on individual attributes is not (as) important?

> > It takes more stamina to show ignorance in this newsgroup
> > now, than it did say a year ago. I have recently refrained
> > from asking questions revealing ignorance because of
> > anticipated reactions here - even when it would just be
> > about exact wording.
>
> Strange, not my experience here at all. I dropped by a few
> weeks ago, readily admitted I was ignorant, participated a
> little, asked some questions, and was treated VERY
> well. When asking database related questions I tried to do
> so with humility and was not vociferous. Could this have
> been a factor in my treatment?
>
> Perhaps your hesitancy has more to do with personal pride?

I no not what I'm hesitant about nor what I'm prideful about. If I have needed to be humbled, I certainly have been. In all my life I have never heard such horrible things about myself as I have from this newsgroup. Based on that I have done more reflection than ever before in my life as well. But I decided to keep going with my studies and continue using this forum to ask questions as I have them. There are plenty of helpful people here, but right now there are far too many who insist on not addressing my questions, but me. That is the reason that I have said things about myself more recently. I thought that might help address concerns (such as some thinking I'm not actually asking honest questions when I am).

> If so you could create an alternate google account (I would
> go for "y" to match up with "x") and post questions using
> that account.

A reason not to do that is that those who are not interested in my topics or discussions on this (I'm not enjoying this discussion myself!) are filtering me out. It doesn't seem fair to then pop up elsewhere. If you don't like my questions, my angle, my opinions, or my personality, you need not engage.

> Perhaps you will discover good treatment and
> relax enough to post questions from you main account.

I receive good treatment from many of those here, but terrible treatment from some. I have tried hard to learn the proper vocabulary, but still seem to miss the mark. I now suspect there is little or nothing that I really could do to satisfy those who are not interested in these topics that are typically about, rather than within, database theory other than to take my questions elsewhere.

I suspect I will refrain from posting another new question or topic for quite some time, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to know the full answer to this one. If it is buried within this thread, I have not yet found and understood it. --dawn Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 03:40:00 CEST