Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:36:47 GMT
Message-ID: <3prYh.28527$PV3.302542_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Ed Prochak wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:00 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Jason S wrote: >> >>>On Apr 27, 10:41 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >>>>If you have done that already and turned up absolutely nothing, then try >>>>comp.databases or here. >> >>>It's not that I've turned up nothing, it's that I've turned up >>>information that either doesn't sound like it's reliable, or it's >>>product specific. >> >>>what's the difference between the two groups? >> >>I haven't paid any real attention to comp.databases for years so perhaps >>I am not qualified to enumerate differences. That said, I would expect >>the difference in the names probably reflects the difference in the content. >> >>I expect you will find greater support for hackish kludges in >>comp.databases than in comp.databases.theory Here, you will find greater >>support for discussing the underlying mathematics. >> >>You will also find considerable overlap between the two groups so if in >>doubt cross-post to both groups.
>
> Well, there are some of us that try to counter the desire for hackish
> kludges. In particular the desire for many new developers to think all
> you need for a primary key is a numeric ID column gets my attention
> regularly.
>
> We generally discuss the practical matters of data models, joins and
> such. I try to avoid DB theory here, so I have sent some discussion
> back to you guys (e.g. neo with his XDB).
Ahhh, so we have you to blame for Neo coming around... Okay everyone, grab the pitchforks and torches--we're heading over to Ed's house!
Getting a poster's
> datamodel to First normal form is often a bigger issue here than
> getting it into Fifth normal form. There is more focus on whether a
> query fits the SQL standard than whether it fits a mathematical model
> of databases. So there is some high level experience here but turned
> more toward day to day DB issues. Here it is more about the practice
> of DB development.
In other words, hackish kludges. The theory is the practice of database development.
> If in doubt about which group to post to (comp.databases or
> comp.databases.theory) I would not suggest posting to both. Maybe
> default to here (comp.databases) if you are unsure. If it really is a
> theory question, we will let you know either the answer (if it's an
> easy clear-cut one) or point you to the theory group if it involves an
> issue settled.
Ed, what makes you think anyone at comp.databases would recognize a question with a theory-based answer? Wouldn't that require at least a little knowledge of the theory?
> Others may chime in here but I think that gives a better summary of
> comp.databases than a place for "hackish kludges". 8^)
>
> Ed
> PS no offense taken, at least not by me.
I stand by my earlier suggestion: if in doubt, cross-post. It's not like cross-posting comp.object, which only a troll would do. Received on Fri Apr 27 2007 - 20:36:47 CEST