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

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1178221012.371056.145700_at_u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 mai, 21:04, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
>> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > On 3 mai, 18:45, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> "Bob Badour" <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > [Snipped]
>> >> Maybe I cut him too much slack. If the past is any guide, optimizers
>> >> will
>> >> get better, and Brian won't. It's instructive that Both Cimode and
>> >> Kevin
>> >> provide actual data, while Brian merely states his claim.
>> > For my defense, I am trying to trigge questions here. It would be
>> > illusional ton my part to hope to get definite answers.
>>
>> >> But even if he wins this particular race, he will not convince me
>> >> that
>> >> cursors are the way to go. I've seen too much evidence to the
>> >> contrary.
>> > You will soon realize that Brian mainly tries to convince himself.
>> > Getting out of procedural mindset is nothing but *natural* instinct.
>>
>> Could you please elaborate? I don't need convincing. Sometimes I dip
>> into
>> waters that a bit too deep and end up chewing on my foot, but when I know
>> I'm right, I don't need convincing, and I certainly don't try to convince
>> myself.
> You are in denial. Don't you realize that at least 4 people have told
> you the exact opposite of your claims and you are refusing to admit
> they may just be right. Is 'nt there a slight doubt in your mind that
> you may be missing something ? that some aspect of fundamental theory
> may have elluded you?
>

There is an understandable but unreasonable bias against cursors in this group. I wouldn't be surprised if 15 people told me I was full of it, since most of the time, cursors are used incorrectly or where a set-based solution would perform better, and once someone has had a bad experience, it's difficult to set aside emotionalism and examine a similar solution dispassionately.

I guess I'm going to need some test data. So that we can compare apples to apples, could you tell me if the frequency of nulls in the test data of your original post is representative of that for the entire table, and if not, could you let me know what that frequency is?

>> Is it a crime to be flexible enough to attack a problem from more than
>> one
>> angle?
> And what angle would that be ? So far, most of what you wrote does not
> adress the issues I pointed out. I am sorry but despite your
> efforts, you have not established anything that is refutable.
>
> no offence intended
>
>> > [Snipped]
>
>
Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 02:35:44 CEST