Re: SQL For Smarties 3rd Edition - ATTN Joe Celko
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:24:35 GMT
Message-ID: <nY11h.19958$pq4.5814_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
-CELKO- wrote:
>>>Maybe not. Celko seems to have little use for database theory. <<
>
>
> You never read my DATA & DATABASES, did you? Whenever I rant at a
> newbie, have you noticed that I go back to definitions?
>
> I tend to write for the working programmer and give him "applied
> engineering" rather than creating my own languages or using my Masters
> in Math.
>
I bought SQL for Smarties -- and felt ripped-off.
I read someone else's copy of your treatment of trees, graphs, hierarchies, whatever (I don't remember the exact title.) and thought it was pretty vapid.
"Once bitten, twice shy," right? I'd have trouble coughing up the bucks
to take a look at another tome that spends a scant three pages on "Temporal Terminology" yet ten pages on "The Year 2000 Problem." I am glad to see that "Types of Missing Data" can be covered in four pages and that the "SQL NULL" can be handled in less than three pages.
You cited this tree-waster in your response to my remark that you seem to have little use for database theory.
Thank-you for making my point: whatever in the world have Data Encoding Schemes, Access Structures, NCITS Standards for Naming Data Elements, and Check Digit algorithms to do with database theory?
All-in-all, a very Celko-esque response: "Buy my book!" Received on Sun Oct 29 2006 - 14:24:35 CET