Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation

On 30 avr, 13:42, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
[Snipped]

> > Not only. I have not talked about *order*. Set oriented approaches
> > are totally *order insensitive* in the sense they never require some
> > kind of order as a prerequisite.
>
> I am not sure I understand your point. If I got it right, I'd like to
> suggest that procedural oriented thinkers like to superimpose an order
> requirement on the actual requirements in order to force a strategy that
> they know (rightly or wrongly) to be superior to the one chosen by the
> optimizer in the absence of ordering directives.
>

I realize I missed that point but the answer is yes. That's what I meant to say.

I would also add to the bill of procedurally inclined programmer the *physical bias* to create overhead objects (temp tables, additional columns) in order to meet the requirement of a procedural approach. We have one example here. For instance, the immediate instinct of dear Brian was to create additional columns and objects (+ unecessary operation) where none was in fact necessary. Procedural approaches produce both physical AND logical overhead. What can be done in 3 set operations may require much more operations in procedural mindset (out of itterations I don't count).

[Snipped] Received on Tue May 01 2007 - 22:58:10 CEST