Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:35:10 GMT
Message-ID: <OFTZh.495$Pg4.7478_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Ed Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 2:00 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>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?
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:35:10 GMT
Message-ID: <OFTZh.495$Pg4.7478_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Ed Prochak wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:36 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >
>>Ed Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 2:00 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
> [] >
>>>>>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!
> > > Honey, pull up the draw bridge, we got company coming! >
>> 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.
> > > Maybe I need to visit .theory more often. >>>>easy clear-cut one) or point you to the theory group if it involves an
>>>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
>>>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?
> > Joe Celko would be one. I hope I know enough to know what I don'tt > know. So I think there are a few of us over there.
If you think Joe has a clue about theory, I have to conclude there really is nobody on comp.databases who has any knowledge of 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.
> > Very good point! > > I thought I was saving you from answering some really elementary > questions, but if you want them, we in comp.databases are very willing > to share. > > Have a good day, > Ed
I have no problem with answering really elementary questions. It's really elementary answers that most people in our field lack. Received on Wed May 02 2007 - 05:35:10 CEST