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

"Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message news:eFF_h.7202$rO7.3983_at_newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1178260494.811737.293620_at_y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On 4 mai, 02:35, "Brian Selzer" <b..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
> >> "Cimode" <cim..._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.
> > Have you considered the idea that some people here were once in your
> > exact shoes and they once may had the unshakable belief in what you
> > just wrote.
> >
>
> I only know what I have experienced, and to me it makes sense.

This raises the following question: does "what you have experienced" include what you have learned from other people? If not, what will it take to persuade you that some of the writers in this newgroup are onto something you might find worth while.

> Every
> optimizer step is implemented in the engine by using some form of
iteration.
> What I'm suggesting effectively replaces several optimizer steps with a
> single user-defined one that makes a single pass through the data--similar
> to what a step that computes aggregates does.

I think you are greatly underestimating what a good optimizer can do. I'm judging from a limited understanding of the Rdb/VMS optimizer, going back to 1994. I can only assume that things have gotten better since then. Even if they haven't gotten better, I'm sure they haven't gotten worse. Received on Fri May 04 2007 - 18:50:56 CEST