Re: Question on Structuring Product Attributes
From: Bob Badour <bob_at_badour.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:30:09 -0700
Message-ID: <VfSdnXFPrZhehD7TnZ2dnUVZ5qqdnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
>
>
> A private argument, on Usenet? Whatever next? And if a clause is all I
> want to comment on, why should I not pick it out? There is no isolation,
> everybody has read, or can read, the rest of the thread.
>
>
>
>
> All you have spelled out is the context in which you wrote that, whereas
> what I wanted to know was what you meant by it and what is the
> alternative (since why mention it if there isn't one?).
>
>
>
>
> No, see above.
>
>
>
>
> Which is exactly what I did, but you provided no clarification
> whatsoever.
>
>
>
>
> Now that's just rude.
>
>
>
>
> I am _not_ correcting your English, I am questioning your meaning.
> Declaring a Primary Key does not necessarily cause an index to be built,
> though in most, if not all, current SQL-based systems, it requires that
> one exist. However there is no theoretical reason why this should be so,
> it is merely a readily available method that has been widely adopted.
> And yes, I have deliberately mentioned a theoretical possibility as part
> of my argument, you have no right to tell me that I can't.
>
>
>
>
> Obviously not!
>
>
>
>
> More rudeness.
>
> I never claimed that you said so, it was merely a part of my argument.
> If you want to insist that a discussion should be only on your terms
> then you are obviously not sure you can win without this. And, of
> course, you can't make rules of discussion here.
>
>
>
>
> I don't know for certain that one exists. So what? I know that it is
> possible. Again, you can't make rules of discussion here.
>
>
>
>
> Create the table without declaring the keys, then create the appropriate
> index, then create the keys. No new indexes will be built.
>
> I know this works in Oracle, because I do it frequently, and I am pretty
> sure it works in other products.
>
>
>
>
> You have failed to understand what I was saying. You have descended to
> insult. No doubt you will think you have "won". Enjoy your "victory".
>
> Eric
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:30:09 -0700
Message-ID: <VfSdnXFPrZhehD7TnZ2dnUVZ5qqdnZ2d_at_giganews.com>
Eric wrote:
> On 2011-10-19, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 17, 10:05?pm, Eric <e..._at_deptj.eu> wrote: >> >>>It's sort-of fun to watch two people who don't know enough trying to >>>have an argument. >> >>It is even more fun to watch someone on the sidelines, who is not >>party to the argument, picking up clauses and examining them in >>isolation.
>
>
> A private argument, on Usenet? Whatever next? And if a clause is all I
> want to comment on, why should I not pick it out? There is no isolation,
> everybody has read, or can read, the rest of the thread.
>
>
>>>What on earth is "and have them in a visible column, non-pointer, form" >>>supposed to mean? >> >>Let me spell it out for you: >>- I was not posting a new thread (I would have used proper terms). >>- As I detailed to Jonathan, I was not writing a fully qualified >>thesis (if you are expecting that, you will find it lacking) >>- I was posting a response to Celko's thread. That defines the >>context. >>- Celko was playing "slippery fish", to avoid dealing with specific >>problems that I identified (check the whole thread) >>- In an attempt to prevent the slipperiness, I used Celko's terms. >>- As it progressed, I used further terms make distinctions, using his >>used terms as the base (I would not have used his terms, or my-terms- >>that-are-based-on-his-terms in a stand-alone article)
>
>
> All you have spelled out is the context in which you wrote that, whereas
> what I wanted to know was what you meant by it and what is the
> alternative (since why mention it if there isn't one?).
>
>
>>>All you can ever see of an index (apart from its >>>effect on query performance) is the list of columns indexed and some >>>vendor-dependent stuff usually about physical storage. >> >>Excellent, you seem to understand that correctly. So your question is >>either rhetorical or plain absurd.
>
>
> No, see above.
>
>
>>If you have an honest argument with me, just state it; if there is >>something you wish to clarify about one of my statements, ask a >>question.
>
>
> Which is exactly what I did, but you provided no clarification
> whatsoever.
>
>
>>But this picking and gnawing on the carcasses left, after >>others have feasted, is for the birds.
>
>
> Now that's just rude.
>
>
>>>Just to pick on one more thing: >>> >>> >>>>- each PRIMARY KEY constraint builds an index >>>>- each UNIQUE constraint builds an index >>> >>>Not "builds", but "usually needs" : >> >>Correcting my English is petty. If you fancy yourself an editor, send >>me your CV, I will send you all my posts to edit, before I post.
>
>
> I am _not_ correcting your English, I am questioning your meaning.
> Declaring a Primary Key does not necessarily cause an index to be built,
> though in most, if not all, current SQL-based systems, it requires that
> one exist. However there is no theoretical reason why this should be so,
> it is merely a readily available method that has been widely adopted.
> And yes, I have deliberately mentioned a theoretical possibility as part
> of my argument, you have no right to tell me that I can't.
>
>
>>>- nowhere is there a requirement that primary and unique keys be >>>? implemented with an index >> >>Try reading the entire statement in context. You might draw a >>different conclusion.
>
>
> Obviously not!
>
>
>>If that is still confusing, try this: I did not say "there is a >>requirement..." so there is no point arguing against what I did not >>say. I am quite happy to address issues regarding what I have said >>(the thread is ready evidence). But I do not engage with isolated >>scraps. It might give the readers the idea that such isolated scraps >>have some credibility, or that bird-like behaviour is appropriate for >>functioning adults.
>
>
> More rudeness.
>
> I never claimed that you said so, it was merely a part of my argument.
> If you want to insist that a discussion should be only on your terms
> then you are obviously not sure you can win without this. And, of
> course, you can't make rules of discussion here.
>
>
>>>- only one index is needed and there is nothing to prevent an SQL parser >>> being smart enough to realise this >> >>Marvellous. Identify which SQL does that (post evidence).
>
>
> I don't know for certain that one exists. So what? I know that it is
> possible. Again, you can't make rules of discussion here.
>
>
>>Until then your suggestion is possibility in the future, not a >>reality, which is what Celko posted (he did not say "sometime in the >>future, some SQL could ...", he posted "Here is how to do this >>[now] ..."), which I am arguing. I can simply state, no SQL does that >>[now]. The implication is "now", on Earth, not "ten years from now", >>not "if and when the vendors wake up and read Celko's post", not on >>the fourth moon of Jupiter. >> >> >>>- if the parser is not smart enough there may well be a way of >>>? second-guessing it and still ending up with only one index. >> >>Feel free to post the method.
>
>
> Create the table without declaring the keys, then create the appropriate
> index, then create the keys. No new indexes will be built.
>
> I know this works in Oracle, because I do it frequently, and I am pretty
> sure it works in other products.
>
>
>>Otherwise your suggestion is a yet >>another fantasy of could-bes and guesses. Just like Celko. Any >>examination reveals that his method is based on facilities that are >>not available now, as stated "do this", that the method might be >>useful at some point in the future, if and when some SQL vendor >>supplies the the underlying facility. >> >>My method is based on the here and now, in any SQL (I have >>specifically excluded the non-SQLs), on Earth. >> >> >>>And finally... >>> >>> >>>>... under the covers is not relevant ... >>> >>>True, but you don't always seem to understand where the covers are. >> >>Thanks for your opinion. I will make sure I give it the consideration >>it deserves, keeping in mind your demonstrated level of capability, in >>understanding technical matters, and your could-be, should-be, >>attitude to addressing present day reality. >> >>Should you wish to address any of the salient points in my post, a >>piece of meat, rather than a scrap, I might give your avian opinion >>more consideration.
>
>
> You have failed to understand what I was saying. You have descended to
> insult. No doubt you will think you have "won". Enjoy your "victory".
>
> Eric
Must the troll feedings continue? Received on Sat Oct 22 2011 - 21:30:09 CEST