Re: Curious SQL question
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:49:55 GMT
Message-ID: <nVSmh.40114$cz.592348_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>On Jan 3, 6:10 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps a more instructive question would be: How does one identify
>>>those customers who bought no products at all?
>>
>>Heh. Assuming that the definition of "customer" is someone who
>>has bought some products, the question of what customers have
>>bought no products at all can be answered without actually
>>consulting the database; it is a tautology.
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:49:55 GMT
Message-ID: <nVSmh.40114$cz.592348_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Brian Tkatch wrote:
> Marshall wrote: >
>>On Jan 3, 6:10 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps a more instructive question would be: How does one identify
>>>those customers who bought no products at all?
>>
>>Heh. Assuming that the definition of "customer" is someone who
>>has bought some products, the question of what customers have
>>bought no products at all can be answered without actually
>>consulting the database; it is a tautology.
> > But we're talking databases here. Customers are defined by the Customer > TABLE, orders or not.
Why are you so intent on proving your ignorance to the world?
Customers, in a database, are defined however the schema defines them. In the original two-table schema given, no such Customer table existed, and yet the schema managed to define customers, which contradicts your absurd claim on its face.
> Although, if they started a new field of Quantum Databases, you'd be > correct. :)
If you have nothing useful, correct or even witty to contribute, perhaps, you would benefit from reading and thinking more than from posting. plonk
>>For the question to make sense, then, that can't be the definition
>>of customer. Which brings us back to the question Bob asked.
Received on Wed Jan 03 2007 - 19:49:55 CET