Re: Senior Oracle DBA now Learning InformixbyRequestofCompany

Mark Townsend said: > Hmm - I don't think even Serge would agree with this statement. > Procedural code has it place both within and extant to the database I was thinking more of another IBMer, guy called Codd -- heard of him? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Mark Townsend said: >> Hmm - I don't think even Serge would agree with this statement. >> Procedural code has it place both within and extant to the database > I was thinking more of another IBMer, guy called Codd -- heard of him? Indeed, I wouldn't go that far. Logic is logic and set processing is set processing One of the aggravating problems we have is that schools don't turn out relational skills. I can point anywhere: 1. Daniel's incomprehension of this thread despite him being an acknowledged leader in his field ;-) 2. Posters in this newsgroup arguing against the usefulness of subqueries ("inline views" in Oracle lingo). 3. Discussions in SQL Server newsgroups actually comparing views with procedures (Bottom line: Don't use views!). 4. Last but not least that I get the impression that most would rather read Foucault's Pendulum then attend my talks. From an academic point of view I lean towards Codd (hence my favorite baby SELECT FROM INSERT). But in reality half of my audience last week was plain stunned by the trivial :-) SQL I presented. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Serge, I am very encouraged by your report! If I read your post correctly it implied that the audience doesn't get SQL! That is great to know. SQL as a language sucks for the most part. If you "get it" that's great, but I've never been good at SQL, nor do I want to be. If I have to develop a sub-query ( sub-select ) it's the exception rather than the rule simply because I don't trust most SQL. I don't know if you've had the joy of actually working in a MS-SQL-Server shop, but you will indeed get to see some of the most twisted SQL you could ever want to see. Microsoft people love to figure everything out in SQL. It's messy, and like Oracle, makes for great billable. I think overall if you have to use complicated SQL to get the data you want then your data model is broken. To wit, as much as I love Informix, even the sysmaster database could use some improvements in this area, but that's another thread. If your application depends on complicated SQL then again, the data model is broken. As broken as MS-SQL's optimizer is, I am truly amazed at how businesses depend on it--er I guess that applies to Oracle as well. By the way, MySQL has some interesting features with their SQL but that's another thread... Happy Holidays! :-) Serge Rielau wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Mark Townsend said: >>> Hmm - I don't think even Serge would agree with this statement. >>> Procedural code has it place both within and extant to the database >> I was thinking more of another IBMer, guy called Codd -- heard of him? > Indeed, I wouldn't go that far. > Logic is logic and set processing is set processing > > One of the aggravating problems we have is that schools don't turn out > relational skills. > I can point anywhere: > > 1. Daniel's incomprehension of this thread despite him being an > acknowledged leader in his field ;-) > 2. Posters in this newsgroup arguing against the usefulness of > subqueries ("inline views" in Oracle lingo). > 3. Discussions in SQL Server newsgroups actually comparing > views with procedures (Bottom line: Don't use views!). > 4. Last but not least that I get the impression that most would > rather read Foucault's Pendulum then attend my talks. > > From an academic point of view I lean towards Codd (hence my favorite > baby SELECT FROM INSERT). But in reality half of my audience last week > was plain stunned by the trivial :-) SQL I presented. > > Cheers > Serge

Double Echo wrote: > Serge, > > I am very encouraged by your report! If I read your post correctly it > implied that the audience doesn't get SQL! That is great to know. > > SQL as a language sucks for the most part. My mandarin is abysmal. Yet I would never state that Mandarin sucks. I suck for not being able to hear a dozen tones.... SQL is a decent (far from perfect) notation for relational algebra. What sucks is that no-one learns relational algebra. I recall in grade three having a box of different colored shapes of varying thickness. Teachers taught me relational algebra right there using "factories". "Combine triangles with squares, filter out anything red and thin..." Cheers Serge PS: I also spent a week living in the "land of 3s"... faszinating :-) -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab WAIUG Conference http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Serge Rielau said: > 4. Last but not least that I get the impression that most would > rather read Foucault's Pendulum then attend my talks. Possibly because Umberto's more interesting than you. > From an academic point of view I lean towards Codd (hence my favorite > baby SELECT FROM INSERT). But in reality half of my audience last week > was plain stunned by the trivial :-) SQL I presented. I think you must be confusing Codd with someone who liked SQL. :o) -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I don't read newspapers anymore except the local rag which I do weekly to cheer myself trying to see if anyone I hate has been stabbed." -- Horribilis XVI -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Serge Rielau wrote: > Double Echo wrote: >> Serge, >> >> I am very encouraged by your report! If I read your post correctly it >> implied that the audience doesn't get SQL! That is great to know. >> >> SQL as a language sucks for the most part. > My mandarin is abysmal. Yet I would never state that Mandarin sucks. > I suck for not being able to hear a dozen tones.... > Are you moving to China or supporting the Mandarin language? > SQL is a decent (far from perfect) notation for relational algebra. > What sucks is that no-one learns relational algebra. Exactly. So you can't beat up the user because they can't understand how to speak "computer" beyond the basics. If SQL was/is so great, there wouldn't be a need for E/SQL, Java, C, PHP, Perl, Python, etc etc. > I recall in grade three having a box of different colored shapes of > varying thickness. I can't remember grade 3. > Teachers taught me relational algebra right there using "factories". > "Combine triangles with squares, filter out anything red and thin..." > I never saw the connection of algebra to SQL, never attended a set-theory class, and quite happy to bill out at the same rate or better than a computer-science graduate. The capitalistic net-effect is probably best to describe my perspective. SQL for me is done best in small, absolute result sets that I can build on, instead of trying to glom one huge result out of twisted, mangled SQL that doesn't make any logical sense to normal humans, and in most cases leaves doubt as to its certainty of it being reliable. This is what you see in a lot of MS-SQL talent, everything has to be done in SQL or ( gasp ) stored procedures, another poor offering to the developer. I've also heard that Oracle developers prefer to do everything in the database, instead of building applications that run simple, fast selects and build results incrementally, for the most part building applications outside of the database, with minimal impact to the engine. > Cheers > Serge > > PS: I also spent a week living in the "land of 3s"... faszinating :-) >