Re: Designing database tables for performance?

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:Ii5Eh.1136395$R63.204989_at_pd7urf1no...
> Lemming wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:44:35 GMT, Bob Badour
> > <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>To exactly what sort of logic does it apply? Predicate logic? First
> >>order? Second order?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sweet Jesus. I've read a few more threads now, and it doesn't get
> > much better in here, does it?
> >
> > I'm outta here; this froup isn't worth my time. But just before I go,
> > I'd like to state categorically and for the record that I only have a
> > small penis, I can't piss more than a couple of inches, and my dad is
> > a wimp.
> > ...
>
> If you are old, eg., over the hill, I'd say that is the right decision,
> if you are younger, certainly less than forty, I'd say stick with it for
> a while. Forty is not quite a generation younger than me but I would
> say most average people I know or who have read who approach my
> generation cannot possibly make sense of this field unless they have
> followed it since they were in their twenties.

I think you're stereotyping people with regard to age. I had been programming for twenty years when I ran across the relational model of data, and a relational DBMS. I was able, at that age to go through a rather complete change in mode of thinking, without losing sight of the old mode of thinking. That was twenty years ago, now.

While I'm by no means as smart as I was twenty or forty years ago, I'm still smart enough to follow most of the discussion in here, although my handle on databases is largely based on practice rather than theory. I suspect that "over the hill" is highly dependent on how firmly one is convinced that one has already learned all the important stuff. By this definition, some people are over the hill at 25, or younger. Others are not over the hill at 80. Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 15:37:09 CET