Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158529573.221832.120100_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> >
> > Marshall, your reply to Pamela was persuasively worded yet has two fatal
> > flaws:
>
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. As to your point 1, I freely admit the
> failing. It is an area I am currently working on, and still need
> work in. I'll try to digest what you said. As to your point 2,
> sometimes one is more concerned with the wider audience,
> even when one is addressing a specific individual. I am
> particularly keen lately to knock down any hint that there
> is any advantage to ignorance.
>
>
> Marshall
>

There is an advantage to ignorance, as I pointed out to you about a year ago. Unfortunately, the advantage is in the shedding. One can't profit repeatedly from the same point of ignorance. If one is unwilling to learn (which the phrase "invincibly ignorant" implies) then one learns the same truth over and over again, but forgets it as soon as it threatens to undo one's ignorance.

You already pointed out that the lowest table in Pam's example is not in 1NF. The same is true of the two lowest tables in the original example: TRANS_A and TRANS_B. Pam's current theory is that GROUP BY produces the wrong groups.

I haven't attempted to use GROUP BY with data that is not in 1NF, but I would expect certain anomalies to appear. And I expect that summing an extensive measure is among them. I also expect that counting the rows in each group would produce anomalies. This has nothing to do with limitations in SQL. It has to do with inability to tell duplicates apart, inherent in data that is not in 1NF. Received on Mon Sep 18 2006 - 13:44:04 CEST