Re: Surrogate Keys: an Implementation Issue
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:43:51 GMT
Message-ID: <b9ryg.28138$pu3.372481_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> Shouldn't have to, I admit. I was merely trying to keep the discussion
> honest. I've met so many people who throw out such red herrings when
> what they really want to do is extend a theory because they like a
> technique that deals with a problem the theory doesn't talk about at all
> (ie., concurrency, which I see as an application problem, in the same
> sense that the changing of an account balance is an application problem,
> not an RT problem). I resent the push to hack together/entangle
> different theories because it makes it so much harder to see whether
> any one of them is being applied correctly. I admit it's 'jobs for the
> boys' but those jobs are a phony kind of economy and I don't see why it
> should be that most dbms's are so fat.
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:43:51 GMT
Message-ID: <b9ryg.28138$pu3.372481_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
paul c wrote:
>> paul c wrote: >> >>> Brian Selzer wrote: >>> >>>> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message >>>> news:e43yg.27359$pu3.361813_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... >>>> >>>>> JOG wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> J M Davitt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> [big snip] >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> How much work have you done in the field? This comment makes you >>>> sound like a neophyte. >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> Is this changing the subject? >> >> >> Paul, >> >> Selzer is apparently unable to extract the meaning from relatively >> simple english. Why would anyone care what anything sounds like to >> such an idiot?
>
>
> Shouldn't have to, I admit. I was merely trying to keep the discussion
> honest. I've met so many people who throw out such red herrings when
> what they really want to do is extend a theory because they like a
> technique that deals with a problem the theory doesn't talk about at all
> (ie., concurrency, which I see as an application problem, in the same
> sense that the changing of an account balance is an application problem,
> not an RT problem). I resent the push to hack together/entangle
> different theories because it makes it so much harder to see whether
> any one of them is being applied correctly. I admit it's 'jobs for the
> boys' but those jobs are a phony kind of economy and I don't see why it
> should be that most dbms's are so fat.
Not all dbms's are all that fat. Lee Fesperman's stuff over at http://www.firstsql.com/ is particularly lean. Selzer seems to want to make applications and databases fatter rather than the dbms, so I am not sure I follow you at all. Received on Fri Jul 28 2006 - 18:43:51 CEST