loop between 2 datetime field values
in [Programming SQL]
|
Prev: SQL 2008 passing Table-Value-parameters to stored proc via ODBC
Next: Insert multiple rows with stored procedures
From: --CELKO-- on 24 Dec 2009 00:46 >> But this is getting very serious now; its confusing the hell out of people just wanting to use what is in the product and don't care about portability. << A programmer would have be in a very small isolated environment to deal with one and only one SQL product. DB2 and Oracle are the big two; MySQL and LAMP rules the web; Teradata dominates data warehousing; some really good SQLs have niches. Tony, you will not fall off the edge of the World when you leave your village. Like most Cowboy Coders, you think that portability is only across SQL products; it is across releases of the same product. The Pros that wrote to Standards were not screwed changes that brought SQL Server in that direction. If you want to have a specialization in a dialect, that is fine. Good tool. I use my math for BI. But a cowboy will try to lock his client into dialect for HIS job security and not the long-term good of the client. A professional SQL programmer ought to know the difference and be able to justify and document his choices when he picks dialect over standards. Much of my work is to make SQL portable. I work for companies that need to run on multiple hardware and software platforms. They are growing. Your work seems to be keeping your clients away from the version of SQL Server the you know. The professional also ought to have a theoretical model (what I call a mindset) so he has a higher abstraction of the problems and the solutions.
From: Tony Rogerson on 24 Dec 2009 01:14 Ok then - put a disclaimer at the bottom of all your posts that it relates entirely to the ISO SQL standard and remember to note which incarnation of it - ANSI 89, 92, 2003 etc Perhaps then you'll stop posting drivel that doesn't even work on this product like YYYY-MM-DD, like the way the internals of this product work (one pass compile etc..) etc.... Don't worry --CKELO-- I've got 5 years DB2, ok - 3 months Oracle, and I'll be learning Teradata on the masters degree in BI that I'm starting in January - hardly a one trick pony! I'm fully aware of what's what give my 23+ experience within IT, at the coal face rather than in some 4 walled classroom turning hearsay into fact. Portability died a long time ago - its not that often you come across anybody who cares about it, heard of it and much less actually doing a project with that as a deliverable - remember, I'm working day in, day out with multiple clients and also have my source from the user group I run - a user group of a good few thousand people here in the UK - so I know what is what; but do you? I suspect not; but you'll only know that yourself ;). --ROGGIE-- "--CELKO--" <jcelko212(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4100c79e-fee5-4ce7-b22e-9a8b870ead12(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>> But this is getting very serious now; its confusing the hell out of >>> people just wanting to use what is in the product and don't care about >>> portability. << > > A programmer would have be in a very small isolated environment to > deal with one and only one SQL product. DB2 and Oracle are the big > two; MySQL and LAMP rules the web; Teradata dominates data > warehousing; some really good SQLs have niches. Tony, you will not > fall off the edge of the World when you leave your village. > > Like most Cowboy Coders, you think that portability is only across SQL > products; it is across releases of the same product. The Pros that > wrote to Standards were not screwed changes that brought SQL Server in > that direction. > > If you want to have a specialization in a dialect, that is fine. Good > tool. I use my math for BI. But a cowboy will try to lock his client > into dialect for HIS job security and not the long-term good of the > client. A professional SQL programmer ought to know the difference and > be able to justify and document his choices when he picks dialect over > standards. > > Much of my work is to make SQL portable. I work for companies that > need to run on multiple hardware and software platforms. They are > growing. Your work seems to be keeping your clients away from the > version of SQL Server the you know. > > The professional also ought to have a theoretical model (what I call a > mindset) so he has a higher abstraction of the problems and the > solutions. >
From: Erland Sommarskog on 24 Dec 2009 11:02 --CELKO-- (jcelko212(a)earthlink.net) writes: > A programmer would have be in a very small isolated environment to > deal with one and only one SQL product. The system I work is by means nowhere close to small. And in runs on SQL Server only. The size of the system may be different for other SQL programmers, but most programmers only work with one product at a time. And to be able to get the best performance out of their system, they need to know the product they work with. Sure, sometimes people cross borders. We had a guy that joined our team that had a long experience of Oracle. A brave step, but there was no happy ending. He was mainly grumpy and whined about SQL Server not doing things he was used to, and he left after two years. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel(a)sommarskog.se Links for SQL Server Books Online: SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx SQL 2000: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
From: TheSQLGuru on 24 Dec 2009 11:13
No, you did not say that cursors are not the preferred way. You said "SQL has no loops. SQL has no sequential data access." That is a patently wrong statement whether we are talking TSQL or your beloved ANSI SQL. -- Kevin G. Boles Indicium Resources, Inc. SQL Server MVP kgboles a earthlink dt net "--CELKO--" <jcelko212(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:cff2f152-ba33-459b-80c5-132623a26aab(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >I did not know that SQL = T-SQL :) I did not know that cursors are > the preferred way to code and that you want to avoid declarative > code. > > You knew exactly what I was saying. Come on, I expect this kind of > stupid sniping from Tony. You are usually better. > |