Slashdot Mirror
SQL Fundamentals
This beginner book takes a traditional look at the ever-popular Structured Query Language. Never bothered to learn SQL? Here's your chance. SQL Fundamentals, by John Patrick, takes the first layer of SQL in Access and Oracle [robo, I find this a confusing phrase, not sure how best to recast, but somehow] and sums it up in this 834-page manual. Read more for SQL Fundamental's strengths, weaknesses and everything in-between.
The Basics SQL Fundamentals discusses the practical realities of extracting information from a database. Patrick shows the reader how to use SQL in both Oracle and Access. The book starts with a brief overview of the roots of SQL and relational databases; after this introduction, the book covers select statements and the basics of a query. Each chapter builds on the next, and the book follows a simple progression, adding complexity as it goes along.
This book is a very easy read -- it flows much better than a textbook, yet still conveys the information it promises. However, it's definitely for newcomers to SQL. So, if you have any experience in SQL this would not be the best choice. (Chapter 1 explains the concepts of a cell, row, column, and table, which might be enough to let you decide if this book is at the right level for you.) Throughout the book, the author relies on applying each newly introduced concept to a single relational database example. This hypothetical database (a table of employees trying to calculate their meal credits) makes the book feel consistent, and helps eliminate confusion about where the example information comes from, but it's also limiting for readers who want a broader range of examples.
One of the greatest strengths of this book is its wealth of code examples and accompanying tables. In contrast to many other manuals, this book illustrates queries along with their effects on the tables. Other SQL books (ones I consider going up to "layer 2" SQL) have many example queries, but some of them fail to show any sort of results from their example tables. Also, much of the code in SQL Fundamentals is well documented, with footnotes explaining any changes that occurred.
Caution: Beginner Book The book is called SQL Fundamentals. However, in this case, the fundamentals are only as they apply to the Oracle and Access databases. It mentions the existence of other distributions at the beginning of the book: "Oracle, Access, DB2, MS SQL, Informix, SQL Windows, Sybase, SAS sql procedure, FoxPro, dBase, Tandem SQL, MySQL, SQLBase, Cold Fusion, SAP, Business Objects, ODBC, Ingres, Ocelot SQL, OsloData, PostgreSQL, Rapid SQL, XDB, SQL/DS, Mini SQL, Empress, Interbase, Progress, Supra, SQL Report Writer, Paradox, Delphi, VAX SQL, Essbase, Beagle SQL, GNU SQL Server, Just Logic/SQL, PrimeBase, Altera SQL Server, DataScope, and PowerBuilder." However, Patrick never speaks of them again; perhaps he should re-title this book SQL Fundamentals: Applied to Oracle and Access? Readers considering this book should keep this in mind. The book explains things well, but the book's overall logic is geared toward those using one of those databases, and the examples are relevant only in that context.
I primarily use MySQL and Progress, so a book explaining SQL fundamentals applied to Access and Oracle isn't going to help me unless I specifically take on projects which use these particular databases. Also, The book often goes into unneeded repetition of subjects: for instance, the first 150 pages are all about select statements. I've never seen so many select statements picking apart one table. I personally think it would benefit from being trimmed down, and leaving further study to the reader.
The Plug I would recommend this book to a newcomer to SQL. It covers the fundamentals just like it claims. After finishing this book, you will have a grasp on things ranging from the most basic select statements to unions, self joins, & cross-joins.
Something to consider might be what SQL database you will be working with. If you'll be working with either Oracle or Access this book will be helpful. If not, I suggest looking at things like Managing Using MySQL by O'Reilly.
Finally, from the text comes this concise answer to the question "Who Should Read This Book?"
Everyone with an interest in getting information from a database can read this book. It can be a first book about databases for people who are new to the subject. You do not need to be a computer programmer. The discussion begins at the beginning and it does not assume any prior knowledge about databases.
That seems like a fair summary; with the caveats already mentioned, I can recommend it for newcomers to SQL looking for a thorough but not patronizing introduction.
You can purchase SQL Fundamentals from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
When the SQL to this book will be out? Har de har har har.
Error: Erection reset by beer.
This books sounds like a good read for those of us who know nothing about SQL databases. I am always up for learning new code and systems. I still consider myself a newbie on many computer topics so books like these always seem to help out.
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
How big is the typeface? I mean, come on, it's not that big a language after all and you could easily fit the basics into 50 pages at most...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Do you pronounce it Sequel or S-Q-L???
/. poll!
To me it is Postgres-Q-L and My-S-Q-L, but I think the Microsofties call it Microsoft Sequel Server...
Maybe good for a
If you need to expand your SQL to include PostgreSQL, try:
PostgreSQL: Introduction and Concepts by Bruce Momjian
Practical PostgreSQL, by Command Prompt, Inc. written by John Worsley and Joshua Drake of Command Prompt, Inc.
Very practical definitions, examples, and procedures. I'm still scratching the surface of SQL, so I haven't found anything yet these sources can't handle.
I've also found the Usenet Posgres groups useful.
JA
http://www.johnalex.org/
I recommend this book highly!
Knowing SQL today is like being a literate man in the 15th century.
It's a must have!
I'm surprised they didn't mention FireBird. It's the actively developed version of interbase, and probably one of the best open source databases in existance, even though its relatively unknown. SAP DB (formerly Adabas) is another very mature open source database that is relatively unknown. MySQL and Postgres aren't the only options.
Something to consider might be what SQL database you will be working with. If you'll be working with either Oracle or Access this book will be helpful. If not, I suggest looking at things like Managing Using MySQL by O'Reilly.
I would suggest not, because you will learn bad habits, and they will be hard to shake once you start working on a real database (Oracle, Sybase, SAP-DB, etc). I have seen MySQL programmers do massively inefficient (and stupid) things like retrieve a list of keys from one table, store them in an in-memory array, then loop through the array executing a select for each key in another table - because they didn't know about subselects. I've seen them put all sorts of redundant validation crap in the middle tier because they didn't know about constraints and triggers. I could go on and on...
If you want to learn SQL, you first need a solid general foundation like this (I have an earlier edition) then later study the extensions that each vendor provides (Oracle PL/SQL, Sybase T-SQL, etc).
With OS X came a bundling of MySQL, and CTOs (Chief Technology Officers) across the country thought to themselves that "Hey, if a big profitable company puts this package of OpenSource software into their flagship OS, it must be OK to use. Let's stop dishing out tens of thousands of dollars a year to Oracle and let's just use this free RDBMS implementation. (Sure, PostreSQL is a bit more weathered, but both are pretty nice considering their price).
Wider acceptance of MySQL and its related products/technologies is a good thing, and books such as this are only a good thing in my mind.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
For those who don't know, you can download Oracle 9i for free:l
http://otn.oracle.com/software/content.htm
And if you want a video introduction to SQL, you can get a video course at:
nerdmaker.com
about the book:
It mentions the existence of other distributions at the beginning of the book: "... and PowerBuilder."
I know I stopped using PowwerBuilder with the version 7, and the version 9 is out, but at that time, it was not a SQL database, only a client for SQL databases.
about SQL:
SQL is a langage with which it is really easy to obtain a result that is not what you intended.
2) Did I buy an iBook? Maybe I did and I was drunk and don't remember, but I don't hate Apple.
3) I don't. You are thinking of cyborg_monkey.
4) I don't know what happened to him.
5) I'll have to go look through my posting history and see. I hadn't noticed until now.
Cunning linguists
A "7"! Nowhere near the standard "9".
:-(
I weep for the murdered trees who gave their lives for this.
I personally prefer going with SQuirreL, but from dealing with other Oracle and ms DBAs most conformists go with sequel.
It in fact is Postgres-Q-L and My-S-Q-L, but you use "sequel" to query both of those. I haven't seen anyone in a long time pronounce the language name S-Q-L, the names of the two products you mentioned are dictated by their respective developers, so it's a different matter. (incidentally, I'm as far from a Microsofty as it gets)
sic transit gloria mundi
Actually, what I've found with the people I've dealt with is that most US based people tend to say Sequel whilst over in Europe it tends to be S Q L. I've just got into the habit of pronouncing it however the other person wants to refer to it, as I'm more than happy to use it either way.
I know whenever I'm at a Microsoft event it's been pronounced the Sequel way, but I'm not sure if Oracle or IBM do.
Here is my username and password for a free download of Oracle 9i. You can get your own if you register.
username: support@nerdmaker.com
password: anon314
AFAIK almost everyone says sequel, not just M$ites. What really has me wondering though is, is it Lynnucks or Line-ex and how do you say that Bjarne guys last name?
When I first started making dynamic web pages, I used access. I used acces for various reasons. 1. It was on a computer at school. 2. I was running win 98 at the time. Not many good databases will run with 98. Even though I wanted a database to keep track of things, I only had one option.
Even though I layed out the database in access, I didn't touch access after the file was created. I then moved to personal web server (an all the security holes that creates) to manipulate the database through ASP.
I know there are many others that because of various reasons are unable to get their hands on other databases, if you get the fundementals of sql through access, you are able to understand the majority of sql statements having to deal with other databases. Even though,things do differ, you have somewhat of a foundation to understand sql.
SQL is an interesting critter: you can learn the basics in 10 minutes, but mastery is very tough.
Seems to me that learning SQL requires a 10 page "which end is up" book (the PostgreSQL tutorial is good for this, if I recall correctly) -- enough so that one gets the basics, along with an 814 page reference for doing those big nasty queries that are needed in serious environments.
834 pages seems might intimidate a newbie!
It's Microsoft Squeeeeeal! Server (say it in your best deliverance voice )
Todd
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
I think the SQL in a Nutshell is a great resource, but if you're just starting with SQL this sounds like a decent book, would be nice to have a comparision though. I've lost track of how many times I've had to explain what the first chapter covers (cell, row, column, table, etc). Maybe I should keep a copy around just to loan out in such cases. "Go read chapter one and come back later, then try tell me what you want done."
PS: Amazon has it for $34.99 [associate]
This may be of interest. www.cgisecurity.com/lib
Actually for most /.ers you would get a nice fat result set back, however, you'd be forced to do an inner join with the "LikelyToBeInterestedInASlashdotReadingNerd" table and then you'd get no results.
sPh
SELECT Amazon.Price FROM Amazon WHERE Amazon.Price < bn.com AND Amazon.savings = 12.50 [aff.]
Save some money
SQUEEEL
Quick way (internet) Step 1: go to mysql.com and download mysql
Step 2: go to google.com and enter:
+mysql +sample
Step 3: Spend some time reading, figure it out.
Standardized way (book) The advantages of a good book are mainly in the way of standardization and security. While I've seen books that were crap in reference to this, most do a much better job of providing code samples than the underinformed indivuals writing "samples." That being said, major sites like Zend.com and php.net still provide good examples etc, but in that case you need some fore-knowledge to know what to look for.
All IMHO of course. Many of us are "example learners" as opposed to "book learners".
If you want to make the developers/DBAs/bosses in your company think you are an absolute god, get a copy of Celko's SQL Puzzles and Answers.
Typical view error...
CREATE VIEW girls AS SELECT * FROM slashdot WHERE sex = "F"
... returns an empty set iteself, so your subselect isn't going to do you any good, naturally.
Oh yeah right. Like I'm going to take advice about SQL from someone named SQL*kitten. Pff.
SarcasM Mode off
Actually, usage changed sometime around 1994
I think it started happening before then. I was doing SQL stuff back in the 1990 timeframe (even interviewed at Ingres and Sybase) and everyone I knew was saying sequel even back then. It might have been a Bay Area thing though, or maybe even specific to the "upstart" db's, don't know what the IBM or Oracle camp was calling it.
There is an element to database design that is a subfield of calculus. Just learning the syntax for CREATE TABLE and SELECT doesn't really get you very far. Understanding why relational sets are powerful, and being able to leverage that power to problem solving ends, is a far bigger learning process than simply understanding the syntax of SQL.
In order to fully comprehend, say, the works of E. F. Codd, one really needs a background in automata and in abstract algebra.
Of course I took all the databases courses at DeVry but they never covered this obscure topic. I was recently laid off as an HTML Programmer for a Fortune 5000 Company. During my job search I found many other programming positions required knowledge of SQL in addition to HTML.
I read this book in a long weekend and am ready to design mission critical HTML and SQL application for your business.
The book is "Database Systems Concepts with Oracle CD", and here's the USian link for us over in the colonies. Seems like an interesting book, but there's only one left, so I'll probably end up getting it on Amazon's re-order.
If I wanted to learn the theory behind designing databases what would be a good book to read? I'm thinking more along the lines of learning from a text book v.s. learning from The Blithering Idiot's Guide to Database Design.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
With the Free Software Movement gaining steam. MySQL is the perfect vehicle for getting more Free Software used in government.
The IRS and Social Security should run all of their databases with MySQL!
It in fact is Postgres-Q-L and My-S-Q-L, but you use "sequel" to query both of those. I haven't seen anyone in a long time pronounce the language name S-Q-L, the names of the two products you mentioned are dictated by their respective developers, so it's a different matter. (incidentally, I'm as far from a Microsofty as it gets)
It is properly S-Q-L because Sequel is something different (Structured English Query Language, an IBM project that never went anywhere). But the term "sequel" for SQL has come into common use, so it's the de facto pronounciation.
Microsoft people just call the product "SQL Server" which IMHO is like calling Windows "Operating System" but it comes from the old days when Sybase and Microsoft cooperated (circa MSSQL 4-6/Sybase 10). Sybase's product was called "Sybase SQL Server", but people just call it "Sybase" (akin to calling Windows "Microsoft"). When they split, MS kept the rest of the name.
You can easily spot a hardcore elite database guru by the fact that these people pronounce it "squirrel".
the only problem with that is that MySQL doesn't support subselects at this point. It's being added to the current dev version but not in production versions. so how would one using mysql go about doing a subselect if it's not there ?
pages 800 Fundamentals?
Mabye it should be called a Bible! SQL in a Nutshell is a book about fundamentals.
Justen Stepka
Does anyone else find their choice of databases funny? I could see MS SQL & Oracle, but aren't Access & Oracle two totally different beasts?
Access is for small db's, usually personal ones or very small business databases. Oracle is a big enterprise database capable of storing huge amounts of data.
Isn't that kind of like writing a book teaching you an introduction to writing batch files and mastering C++ all at once?
"Linn uks" would be the closest American accent equivalent. In Torvalds' accent, it's "Leen ooks".
You get the feeling this guy sits at his office all day, hitting refresh on Slashdot's main page every two minutes, waiting for a book review to come up. Not that he's interested at all in the book, but so he can be the first one to post a link to Amazon.com, with his affiliate's ID embedded. Mod this guy down!
I here you. I always get confused with 'C'. Is it pronounced "See"? Or as I like to refer to it: "C".
My coworkers like to read the "Fack" when they need help. If people ask me, I just tell them to consult the "Fa" "Q".
I don't have a sig...Do you??
http://www.bookpool.com/.x/rzzwsost6n/ss/1?qs=sql+ fundamentals
Bookpool is a great resource for technical manuals.
First of all, you do have a point. SQL isn't a big language with a lot of features, but if you had really spent a lot of time working with SQL, you would know that SQL is a language usually implemented with A LOT of nuances, and that many problems that are easy in procedural languages that take a lot of work with SQL.
SQL is a powerful tool, but solving many problems with SQL can be very daunting at times, especially when you're dealing with vendor specific nuances.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Actually there is an official answer. I have an aquaintance that has spend time on and around the ANSI X3H2 committe, and acccording to him the official pronunciation (yep, they actually argued over this) was "ess-que-ell", and not "sequel" or "squeal".
As if it was that important.
Actually, in 93 I heard quite a few people calling SQL "squeal".
Best Slashdot Co
Go design your own porn site to make money, but don't come anywhere near my company. Do you think I'm going to let you design "mission critical" applications after you read a book about SQL on the weekend?
;)
Let me guess, you went to DeVry, didn't you.
Oh... wait..
With OS X came a bundling of MySQL, and CTOs (Chief Technology Officers) across the country thought to themselves that "Hey, if a big profitable company puts this package of OpenSource software into their flagship OS, it must be OK to use.
Yes, the mindset of the fortune 500 lives or dies by what Apple does. "Hey I wouldn't buy any of their overpriced computers but if they think MySQL is great, it must be".
MySQL is pretty good though. Ah hee ah hee hee
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Go to bookpool.com to save money, click on the Slashdot link, if you want to help Slashdot...
Don't you mean...
SELECT * FROM Slashdot_Editors WHERE clue > 0 >
because you forgot a semicolon? Oh wait maybe badder voodoo would happen...doesnt' the clue >0 part have to be in parens?
Why not fork?
Wow! Oracle and Access mentioned in the same sentence without sarcasm or outright laughter. Someone please note the date and time.
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
> Error, column SexLife does not exist in this table.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
It's always pronounced S-Q-L. However, Microsoft (and Sybase) call their product "Sequel" Server. You see, Microsoft "Sequel" Server is basically the brand name of a satabase server that uses S-Q-L, in the same way that "Orace Enterprise Edition" is the brand name of a database server that uses S-Q-L, or "Apache" is the brand name of an HTTP server.
So, it's correct to refer to Microsoft "Sequel", as long as you understand that you're talking about the product, and not the language.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
It's being added to the current dev version but not in production versions.
I've been reading that same statement for about 2 1/2 years. You can expect a subselects in MySQL at about the same time you'll see Duke Nukem Forever under your christmas tree -- in other words, "real soon now", for sufficiently ludicrous definitions of the word "soon."
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
I've seen them put all sorts of redundant validation crap in the middle tier because they didn't know about constraints and triggers. I could go on and on...
Validation logic belongs in the middle tier. The storage tier is just that - storage. It shouldn't be smart, and it very definitely should do anything else than storing the data I tell it to store.
Triggers, constraints - bah. All very vendor specific and they lead to application logic being strewn all over the tiers. Application Logic should be in the middle tier, period.
-josh
I pronounce it "squirrel". I worked in a place where everyone said "sequel" and I hated that name. The strange thing is, I don't know why. I just did.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Where did you learn database? From Sun? No wonder there are so many slow sites these days
oh what a rip off. he stole this from that thinkgeek shirt, the 'select * from users where clue > 0' one. you unoriginal bastard. i can't believe you tried to get away with that. you should've known that SOMEONE on /. would catch that. mod this guy down for thinking so little of /.ers abilities to recognise ripoffs.
No, they most assuredly should not do this.
They should run all of their databases on stone tablets engraved with cardboard styluses. That would be a real step up for them. ;-)
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
Access and Oracle don't strike me as 'good' databases to learn SQL on, there just not ANSI compilent enough!.
Maybe I'm a couple of years out of date but
Oracle has a problem with Joins, they just don't work, and that's a big bit of SQL.
Access has a poor SQL implementation, I can't remeber how poor, but very!.
Prohaps it would have been better if the book used a free, more ANSI complient database and included on a CD) e.g. Postgres or Intrabase.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
When my mom calls me and tells me she's having problems with her "microsoft", it takes an additional 10-20 minute to figure out if she's talking about Windows, Word or Outlook...
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
Dear Slash-Dotters,
I can't believe how clueless you guys are. Everybody knows it's Structured QUERy Language, or
SQUERL, which is properly pronounced _SQUIRREL_.
Sincerely,
Steve
If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle.
So I can't say "squirrel" for MS-SQL. I can't be 1337. Waah! :)
No, the language is SQL (or "seequel").
Only MS idiots refer to the MS SQL Server product as "Microsoft SQL" or "Microsoft Seequel". It's right up there with Windows or Word users who refer to either as "Microsoft".
Oracle is just...Oracle.
Sorry for the shameless plug -- I just use them, I don't get anything out of this.
http://www.addall.com/New/submitNew.cgi?query=013Note, my location is in the URL and it uses this to calculate shipping. You will need to re-search for shipping costs...
Sleep is for the Weak
hahahahaha... After 10 years of doing development, all of it with databases in the back end, I know people like you very well. People who don't understand databases don't know how to use them, and code all of the logic into the middle tier. Very typical. It leads to horrendous bloat, very poor performance, and occasionally, complete project collapse. In one case that I was involved in, the company closed because their project couldn't be done on time since they decided to listen to this "expert" who spouted off similar stuff like what you're saying. The project became an OOP mess that was impossible to debug and maintain. More importantly, performance was never acceptable, so the project and the company died.
Databases, especially "grown up" ones like Oracle and DB2 are designed and optimized to do a hell of a lot more than data storage. If you want storage, use flat files. You should maybe, I dunno... pick up a book. You can write entire applications in nothing but PL/SQL that perform several times better than a similar C++ or Java app.
In fact, so much development is done in the databases themselves, that Oracle has a certification just for that, called the Oracle Certified Application Developer. But alas, generally these days everyone is still running around screaming "middle tier! middle tier" while the real database gurus just sit back and laugh as projects implode.
How is this a beginner's book? A much smaller book will do. Maybe K&R should write one.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I refuse to give money to companies that try and make me feel like an idiot.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
People who don't understand databases don't know how to use them, and code all of the logic into the middle tier. Very typical. It leads to horrendous bloat, very poor performance, and occasionally, complete project collapse. In one case that I was involved in, the company closed because their project couldn't be done on time since they decided to listen to this "expert" who spouted off similar stuff like what you're saying. The project became an OOP mess.... [emph. added]
./ topic), but the proper solution is NOT to write your own database and index managers from scratch. If you want to get out from under the DBA's thumb, then try some other approach besides using arrays for indexing and manually-written joins.
It seems that many OO fans have a desire to create their own "database" from scratch via programming code, and treat the RDBMS as mere "persistence". They end up using array-like things to manage their own indexes for one-to-many and many-to-many relationships, for example.
This is a widely accepted practice in the OO community. I really don't want to maintain such code.
It seems many OO fans want "control". If you use the database for such things instead, then you are more dependent on the DB vendor and DBA's, and that bothers them.
I agree that DBA politics can be a bottleneck for developers at times (would make a great
(Note that I did *not* say that *all* OO fans avoid or mis-use databases. I am only saying that it is too common a practice. Thus, I am not really bashing OO here, but a bad practice often found in OO shops, for whatever reason.)
Table-ized A.I.
If you need a "quick introduction to SQL" try reading Teach Yourself SQL in 10 Minutes. 800+ pages??? If it was a reference book, maybe you could justify the pagecount, but who has the time to thumb through an 800 page introductory text?
Most developers (read: non-DBAs) are just going to do simple SELECT queries. TY SQL in 10 Minutes does the trick for those 95% of cases.
Where did you learn database? From Sun? No wonder there are so many slow sites these days
It seems some of the slowest systems are indeed Sun. It appears that managers don't want to spend the big bucks upgrading, so stick with the slow box and push developers to focus on speed at the expense of other things.
Hopefully Linux will change this, although you can kiss Sun's stock goodbye.
> Triggers, constraints - bah
So what if you're working with a large system that has 50+ forms/processes that update a table and you decide you want to write an audit record to another table whenever something gets modified. Do you
A) recode all 50 forms/processes or
B) write a database trigger to populate the audit table
Seems to me that B would be the better option because you only have to change it in one place and don't have to worry about someone writing a new process that updates your table without writing the audit record.
I would like to see SQL overhauled. It could be replaced with a functional-like syntax (FP) where you reference stuff instead of only nest it. Nesting gets really messy for bigger stuff because it splits "lists" in halfs and separates the halfs by jillions of miles. Plus, you cannot reference repeating sections in SQL without writing views, which requires bothering the grumpy DBA.
A functional syntax would also allow one to add extensions without worrying about ruining the parse tree. Thus, if Oracle had something that Sybase did not when you switched vendors, the DBA could write their own library function to match it. A shop can't add to SQL very easily on their own because of the complexity of the language. FP syntax is more modular.
The longer we wait, the more SQL will become entrenched, due to books like this.
Table-ized A.I.
"Beginners" guide should really be these three lines:
To select something
select columnname1, columnname2 from tablename where columnname1 = 'thevaluetogetby';
To add a line to the DB
insert into tablename (columnname1, columnname2) values('value1', 'value2');
To update a line
update tablename set columnname1 = 'value1', columname2 = 'value2' where columnname1 = 'thelinetoupdate'
THAT is a beginners guide. I don't know what the other 833 1/2 pages have... Sure some people consider all the different joins to be "beginner" but I'd call that stuff intermediate.
Travis
Wrong. If you 'just' want to store data and ignore the functionality available in your DBMS then you should use flat files.
And have everything running local, or were you planning to deploy it on a network?
We keep our phone lists in text files and edit 'em with vi.
I have seen MySQL programmers do massively inefficient (and stupid) things like retrieve a list of keys from one table, store them in an in-memory array, then loop through the array executing a select for each key in another table - because they didn't know about subselects.
And I have seen Oracle programmers cursor through data and/or use sub-selects, because they don't have a good understanding of what you can do with JOIN or GROUP BY.
The point is that all invocations of SQL have their idiosynracies/extensions, and getting to know them is part of the game. MySQL is as good a place to start as any. There is no right answer here.
I'm gonna make this server squeel like a pig.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
No, no, no... how do I say this? NO!
The OP is completely correct: triggers and such are rubbish (except to enforce data integrity when the integral RDBMS mechanisms cannot). DBs are for storage, period. You claim that a DB is a great place to shoe horn logic, but that leads to problems.
1. The bloat is in a functional-programming layer (SQL) instead of a procedural/OO layer. Given a choice between lotsa logic down in a DB and lotsa logic in my app, I'll take the logic in my app any day of the week. SQL does not promote code reuse, whereas most procedural and OO languages do promote it to some degree.
2. The more code you put in a DB, the less portable your schema is -- and I'm not talking about platform portability, I'm talking about RDBMS portability. Nothing is worse than [IBM|MS|ORA] database lock-in.
3. The poor performance you site may be common in your experience, but code in the middle layer(s) is not the cause of that: bad design and poor testing are the causes. Don't confuse correlation with causation.
These points are backed with experience: I've been programming for 15 years, 7 years of that using databases heavily. The company I work for now has terabytes of data stored in the schemas I've developed for my apps, and no one has ever complained about maintenance or performance on one of my designs.
Heh, Windows is called Windows, as in "Windowing System" - not much better than "Operating System" if you ask me.
sic transit gloria mundi
Stroustrup? Catch a Dane, make him SQueaL! *Cough*. Actually, it's something like Strowstrup.
.au floating around with mr Torvalds himself pronouncing it?
Apropos Bjarne, most Scandinavians I've met say S-Q-L, I've _never_ heard anyone call it sequel.
As to Linux, isn't there a
IBM had a language QUEL which stood for something, the successor was naturally called SEQUEL but the name could not be used for copyright reasons so the vowels were dropped. This is why SQL is pronounced sequel and no it does not stand for Structured Query Language.
--- Nukes don't kill people psychopathic megalomaniacs do.
"You can easily spot a hardcore elite database guru by the fact that these people pronounce it "squirrel". "
Haha, that's mean. Planting fake little facts like that to weed out the people who read slashdot and the jargon file and try to sound all cool by using the terminology.
Hardcore elite hackers also call OS/370 'ocelot' too. And the nerd term for Apple is actually 'Fuji', or 'Granny Smith' if you're from Washington.
(disclaimer: I have no idea if SQL is pronounced as squirrel or not, it's just a joke)
Ok, I've never said 'sequel' (like Star Wars ep. 2 is a sequel to ep. 1, both of which are prequils to eps. 4, 5 and 6). It's just S.Q.L. (you don't say issssbnn for ISBN).
.. just my opinions :)
Anyhow
Year, right. Next after 5000 hours. Even professional SQL programmers keep doing serious mistakes in sub-queries. Not only in performance optimization area (waiting for results forever), but also in consistency are (getting unexpected result sets).
When you have 2-3 tables with 1-2 foreign keys than you may learn sub-queries in 12 hours. But when you do a very specific data mining work, combining several huge historical journals, several classification graphs, lots of assotiation maps and many lots of lookup tables, then you might realize that you still have to learn SQL even after 5000 hours of using it. If you don't think so, then you've never done any serious data mining by yourself. I spoke with many SQL programmers who worked with ERP, CRM and Supply-Chain applications and they had the same opinion.
Less is more !
thank you !
I was waiting for someone to point out that the given example of a subselect is really just a simple join. That's really just SQL 101. Now, there are cases for subselects, but they do get hairy.
btw - middle tier all the way - what do you do in sql when you want to say, check db value a, based on return of C function b? run home to mom that's what.
middle tier promotes code re-use, but it also promotes a _logical_ data schema over the _physical_ data schema which is exactly what putting logic in things like triggers and such in does not do.
I would have to agree that this is definitely a book for newcomers. I am new to SQL and I can say that the examples and the index will make anything you need to find/do very easy, especially when I am trying to get my homework done right before it's due. :)
The reviewer hits it right on the nose when he says the book should be renamed SQL Fundamentals: Applied to Oracle and Access (or something like that). This isn't necessarily a bad thing,though. Used in an academic setting (where schools would most likely use Oracle or MS Access) or at home (where most people run Windows with Office installed), you get the most for you value.
If you want a book that covers MySQL (or a different version) so that you can read and use it, chances are that you already know how to install, set up, and configure it. While that may describe the majority of /. readers, it doesn't come close to and every day joe schmoe users.
I work for a publishing company, and believe me, we all say "izbin" for ISBN all the time. I also go back and forth between ess-que-ell and sequel, depending on my mood.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on tv.
Having redundant, or seemingly ludicrous table structures can sometimes be the fault of client specs changing under a programmer/designer's feet.
;-)
I recently completed an app to handle load allocations for a haulage company. A weeks worth of deliveries are emailed over every Saturday, the app sucks it in and populates the db, then makes descisions based upon vehicle availability, capacity etc etc. This was all well and good UNTIL the supplier started reusing distribution point IDs as they changed! So one week we would have ID 65536 holding details for Fred Bloggs, the next, ID 65536 would be Joe Smith. This brilliant idea of reusing IDs was never mentioned, and only appeared after 2 months had passed and problems arose with deliveries appearing at the wrong addresses!
When asked why they did this, the reply was "we just do it that way"?! Needless to say, since the distributor IDs were the foreign key for orders, which were in turn linked to delivery items, and also to the vehicles used for delivery, this lead to some "creative" changes in the db (now delivery points have the id plus another "version" id which doesn't help efficiency all that much, and must look ridiculous to anyone else viewing the code).
Then there was the fact the haulage company wanted to be able to "squeeze" extra items into a vehicle after specifying its maximum capacity - and then asking me why the app wouldn't allow it - oh and also they often wanted to be able to route large vehicles to locations marked as "inaccesible" for that vehicle - which kind of screwed up the routing logic... In fact, just thinking about that project brings tears to my eyes
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
The people you mention are very good preaching, but very bad providing a working alternative. Telling other people to do stuff is not the free software way.
... but when you're developing for a highly-scalable database, you want to wring out as much performance as possible. And that means accepting the fact that if you dump all of your application logic into the middle tier, you'll be sacrificing some potential performance gains for portability.
I also think it's foolish to code all of your stuff to be 100% portable between different databases, since each RDBMS has its own set of customized extensions / improvements. Why would you sacrifice the potential performance of your app just so you can port stuff between SQL Server and Oracle easily, unless you're planning to go back-and-forth between the two?
Your mom is an idiot for repeating such ignorance. You are an idiot for taking up to 20 minutes (?!) to figure out if she's talking about her OS, word processor, or mail program.
there's a middle ground between all or no logic in the "storage layer". tables thems selves contain application logic, checking row types, etc.
/. all day.
;).
SQL does not promote code reuse,
most database queries are reused thus prepared statements were born, and stored procedures. the database folks, bless their hearts, said "hey, you're using that querry quite a bit, how about we just compile it all up in the database for you and speed things up a bit, eh?".. bang, code reuse.
The more code you put in a DB, the less portable your schema is
databases aren't about portability, they're about stability. sure, the cheep database users (PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc) want to keep portable in case something better comes along, but those who spend 500,000$ for their RDBMS software package will keep it around for a tad. they're focused on making sure that their data is available when they need it and that it's reliable data. the RDBMS software ensures that, not some application programmer reading
The company I work for now has terabytes of data stored in the schemas I've developed for my apps
bravo... most companies have terabytes of data stored in their schemas used by their applications written by their developers. they realize the advantages and disadvantages of using certain features of the rdbms and put them to use accordingly (sometimes they might get it right, some times they might not). it's interesting that you design the software that you develop that the company uses for it's terabytes of data. i've found in places i've worked that we create designs for applications to be developed for he company uses to run its business. you might find that if you take out all those i's and use lots of we's for the good of the compnay, you'll still get some credit
Beg to differ. Here in the world of books, "izbin" is the common pronunciation - saying "eye-ess-bee-enn" confirms you to be a newbie.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Sure, this book will help you learn SQL syntax (maybe they ought to have named it "SQL-Primer Plus") and elucidate the schemas found in your favorite LAMP (linux, apache, mysql, perl/php/python) guides, but how will this help teach people the fundamentals of good database design? Sounds like this book will just churn out even more people who can just add "I know SQL and how to build databases" to their resume even though they will give you a blank stare when you ask about normalization. Like how using MySQL for 'learning' purposes leads to bad habits, I fear that this book might also promote loose discipline in web-based-database-applications. If I am contracting someone to build me an ecommerce site and know they have read this book, they won't be hired.
In the coming months I am going to need to learn SQL, in particular, for use with MS SQL (as well the Oracle product). Does anyone have any suggestions for good books for using MS SQL? I am very new to SQL, so this should be an introductory text.
there's a middle ground between all or no logic in the "storage layer"
of course. brilliant observation.
tables thems selves contain application logic
not my tables, and not any tables from the developers on my team.
checking row types, etc.
this isn't application logic, it's data integrity.
"hey, you're using that querry quite a bit, how about we just compile it all up in the database for you and speed things up a bit, eh?".. bang, code reuse.
sorry, that's not code reuse at all, not even close. give me a [stored proc|view|table] that i can inherit from or subclass, and that would be reuse.
but those who spend 500,000$ for their RDBMS software package will keep it around for a tad.
and one of the reasons that they'll "keep it around" is because they paid so damn much for it. why lock in an implementation decision for so long? it doesn't promote agility, nor does it promote flexibility. quite the opposite, it encourages poor SQL coding (i.e., vendor-specific features). it's called the "Golden Hammer" Anit-Pattern. look into it.
most companies have terabytes of data stored in their schemas
um, no. gigabytes, maybe, but most companies have databases in the terabyte range? i don't think so.
you might find that if you take out all those i's and use lots of we's for the good of the compnay, you'll still get some credit
funny, it sounds as if you haven't read _The Mythical Man-Month_, wherein Brooks asserts that the best software systems come from a single mind. if you're a professional software developer (it's hard to tell from your post), i strongly suggest you read it.
as to credit, i'm not in it for that. rather, what motivates me is implementing solutions that help achieve the objectives of the company for which i work. see, i'm a stock holder as well as an employee, and i'm just as motivated by profit as the CEO.
on another point, maybe should note that a great sense of ownership leads to pride in work and higher quality. (to be sure, there are pitfalls associated with too great a sense of ownership, but experienced developers know when and how to cut the cord, so to speak)
I don't ingnore the functionality that standard SQL provides. I use the more complex constructs standard SQL supports all the time to satify complex reporting requirements. This does take advantage of the relational schema to deliver data much more quickly than if I code the logic in the middle tier. This is an appropriate usage of the database tier and it is functionality that flat files will not provide.
No need to respond to my linux or bjarne comment, I was joking, I've heard the pronunciations, please, stop :)
SEQUEL is indeed Structured English QUEry Language, which was invented by IBM back in the 70's as the query language for their relational database System/R. But it did go somewhere: into the public domain, where the acronym was shortened to SQL.
Its success is as much attributeable to Relational Software Inc. as IBM (who continued to use it in System/R's followup SQL/Data System, and SQL/DS's successor DB2), as Relational Software chose it as the query language for their fledgling RDBMS, which you may have heard of - ORACLE
As it became apparent that SQL was here to stay, ANSI created a standard definition (the first of which was SQL-89). Today's SQL standard is based mostly on IBM's implementation, with a good few substantial additions.
So as I understand it, SQL is not really something different to SEQUEL, it's just a newer evolution.
Oh, and back on topic, here's an excellent online introduction to SQL by James Hoffman. I'd also recommend checking out the Google Directory's SQL FAQs, Help, and Tutorials.
Cheers,
For beginners, I always recommend "SQL Queries for Mere Mortals" by Hernandez. Easy to understand and follow.
Madness takes its toll...
After 10 years of doing development, all of it with databases in the back end, I know people like you very well. People who don't understand databases don't know how to use them, and code all of the logic into the middle tier
I understand relational databases very well. Know how to use them very well, and program tons of code on a very successful platform that locates ALL of it's business logic in the middle tier. This is just good design. Period. It allows for maximal code reuse, and minimized maintenance issues.
In one case that I was involved in, the company closed because their project couldn't be done on time since they decided to listen to this "expert" who spouted off similar stuff like what you're saying.
I know nothing about your project, but I can guarantee you there were more extensive problems than your expert advice. Well designed database schemas which are properly indexed should perform well regardless of where business logic is located. In fact throwing on triggers and relational constraints will tend to slow down performance.
From The "You Say Tomatoe..." Dept:
Maybe it's the Southern boy in me, but does anyone else pronounce it see-kwuhl and not see-kwell?
"The forecast for tonight is dark, with widely scattered light in the morning."
I would vote for SQLCourse.com as the easiest way to get started in SQL.
:).
:-)
:-)
After it I had to read 4 other books, but that is the site that I refer all people who ask me about SQL. Simple, enjoyable, and hands-on practice.
Since I was a moderator, I am posting as a logged out AC (my points are used up
Anyhow sqlcourse.com, "Database design for mere mortals", "PHP & MySQL development" (on Sams), and "SQL Server 2000 Developer Guide" is all that I needed to learn database programming. For the Enterprise-inclined, I'd recommend "Instant SQL Server 2000 Applications". mySQL is OK for beginning programming in SQL. One quickly enough outgrows its capabilities.
As far as Access goes, here's a not-so-obvious shortcut to its SQL interface.
Open a database, go to Query, create query in design mode, right below the file menu is a button that looks either like a grid, or a triangle. If you click it, the last choice in the pull down menu is SQL.
Select at will
I will also argue that Access 2002 (XP) uses MSDE as its engine, so the user has an excellent environment to work with. MDB format is bad, MSDE is nice as it's simply an embedded edition of SQL Server 2000.
These are good resources.
As long as someone tries to stick to ANSI-compliant SQL, it's nothing too difficult.
For someone who understands relational theory tools such as Access Visual Query and Datanamic's DeZign for Databases greatly simplify their life.
Lastly, using Safari saves quite a bit on books too.
No affiliate links were used in this message.
Leonid S. Knyshov
middle tier promotes code re-use, but it also promotes a _logical_ data schema over the _physical_ data schema which is exactly what putting logic in things like triggers and such in does not do.
Let's say you want to access the same group of tables from multiple places in your application, in different objects running on different hosts written by different people, and you don't have source to some of them. You've got 3 choices:
Option 1 is just silly - impossible to maintain for all but the most trivial cases. Option 2 adds an additional layer of indirection, hitting performance, it's another layer to test and another point of failure in production, and it's functionally the same as a trigger anyway. Or pick option 3, which has been refined over 2-3 decades in some of the toughest transactional processing apps in the world, keeps all you code in one place, and guarantees integrity even if you can't in your objects.
As an experienced system architect, one of the mistakes I see newbies make all the time is that they think because their tiers are logically distinct, they have to be physically distinct too. In a professional shop, your logical design will be done by a theoretician who doesn't even know or care what the eventual platform will look like, then the physical design is done by a hardcore, grey-haired DBA who's been there and done that on a dozen major projects. The programmers who actually implement it almost always don't see the big picture, because they're the specialists that focus on their own personal bits of the code.
> [schnip] and you don't have source to some of them.
if I don't have the source to applications that are accessing my database, then I'm in pretty big trouble. not having the source means I don't trust the app, and at that point it's like having a wide open door to your db. Sure you could play catch up with some triggers and such, but really, you're already in a bit of a mess aren't you?
Let's assume a reasonable environment though, we're you're building an app, and have control over the source. So - if twenty apps update 5 tables, then which sounds better - leave the database wide open and assume they can be updating it any which way, biting your nails worrying about a data integrity problem (like - maybe application a updates column a in one way and application b does it in another) or put the update code in one place, such that all applications go through the same api.
Preferably this api is a middle ware api, but it could just be an object to, middle ware is easier to maintain, but perhaps has more up front infrastructure.
As far as performance goes, that's just total bullshit. If anything, moving the core integrity checking off to another host, and freeing you're database server to do record management only will speed things up. Further, if reads and writes are funneled through a correct api you only need to change one set of code once when you want to change database schemas, which you _will_ want to do. Business requirements change, tables need to be added.
btw - in you're description of what 'professionals' do, how do the programers ever know of the logical data model if they are hitting the physical data directly?
there's a middle ground between all or no logic in the "storage layer"
You can still have a business logic layer. It's just that in many projects, that logic is faster and more efficient running as PL/SQL or TSQL than it is in some compiled DLL.
and one of the reasons that they'll "keep it around" is because they paid so damn much for it. why lock in an implementation decision for so long? it doesn't promote agility, nor does it promote flexibility. quite the opposite, it encourages poor SQL coding (i.e., vendor-specific features). it's called the "Golden Hammer" Anit-Pattern. look into it.
If you're talking about a serious piece of software (as opposed, to say, a web app for a shopping cart or something similarly as silly), flexibility isn't an issue. You simply don't go around switching databases for say, a bank or a credit card company or a health care provider. Any IT guy that says "let's switch databases" mid-stream for no good reason is incompetent. Projects that use things like Oracle generally use it because the company is stable, the projects are stable, and the project is going to live largely intact for many years.
um, no. gigabytes, maybe, but most companies have databases in the terabyte range? i don't think so.
It sounds like you're used to working on smaller, perhaps not misson-critial projects for smaller companies. Terrabyte+ databases are very common in most Fortune 500 companies, gov't institutions, etc. Who do you think keeps Sun in business? You don't buy Sun hardware for a 100 gig database. You get a PC.
Your assumption that flexibility is always so very important is wrong. No reasonable company is gonna be switching databases like they change their pencil suppliers. It just doesn't happen. Hell, I know of many instances where companies stay with the same *version* of database for 5+ years.
Why not download MySQL AB's own manual? It is good.
If you're talking about a serious piece of software (as opposed, to say, a web app for a shopping cart or something similarly as silly), flexibility isn't an issue.
Flexibility is always an issue because requirements always change. To think and to code otherwise is folly and professional laziness. Anytime you get a set of requirements and code to them blindly without considering the ramifications on maintenance and future business objectives you invite disaster.
You simply don't go around switching databases for say, a bank or a credit card company or a health care provider.
Of course you cannot when they've been coded as you suggest. It's simply not practical, and maybe even not possible under your guidelines. If you code to SQL-92 whenever it can be done, switching databases becomes a real possibility.
Any IT guy that says "let's switch databases" mid-stream for no good reason is incompetent.
Straw man. Of course if there is "no good reason" it would indicate incompetence. However, there are often many good reasons to switch databases, such as constantly shifting licensing terms *cough*Oracle*cough*, ridiculous licensing fees *cough*Oracle*cough*, lack of standards *cough*Oracle*cough*, etc.
It sounds like you're used to working on smaller, perhaps not misson-critial projects for smaller companies. Terrabyte+ databases are very common in most Fortune 500 companies, gov't institutions, etc.
The original poster said "most companies", and "most companies" are not Fortune 500 or even Fortune 1000 companies. I thus stand by my statement that most companies do not have database systems in the terabyte range. And it sounds like instead of refuting my original points, you'd rather try to dismiss them by suggesting I don't have experience with mission critical systems. Fact is, the databases and applications I design, develop and deploy are carrier-class because they have to be.
Given your repeated mention of Oracle, it sounds like you're actually an Oracle developer as opposed to a SQL developer. That's okay, I suppose, as everyone needs to have a job.
Hell, I know of many instances where companies stay with the same *version* of database for 5+ years.
Uh-huh. And do the same companies have to maintain their code? How about extend it? Thought so.
You don't want to (unless, say, your organization grows rapidly and you need to migrate to a database and platform you couldn't previously afford), but what kind of leverage do you think you'll have with the vendor when it becomes known that you can't?
Sure, many databases have crummy optimization and need to be coddled with proprietary query syntax, but failing to bundle a tested ANSI-conforming equivalent is negligent.
Validation logic belongs in the middle tier. The storage tier is just that - storage. It shouldn't be smart, and it very definitely should do anything else than storing the data I tell it to store.
Triggers, constraints - bah. All very vendor specific and they lead to application logic being strewn all over the tiers. Application Logic should be in the middle tier, period.
There should always be enough validation logic in the database to enforce the consistency of the data. check constraints, triggers to manage foreign key relationships, etc. But I agree that general buisness logic shouldn't be there... just enough stuff to guarantee the correctness of the data. That's the whole point of a DBMS, to manage the database. Otherwise you're just wasting your time & money. Use flat files. or mysql.
And this stuff is not vendor specific until you get too advanced. check constraints have the same syntax all over...
A 834 page book is not a beginners book. This
books really was'nt worth getting a review posted
here. There are plenty of online SQL tutorials
to get started.
It should be pronounced SEQUEL instead of spelled S-Q-L because you save one syllable that way and I'm a lazy freakin' sod.
From my experience consulting ... I discovered that 80% of the Database pros (those actually in the field) have a very weak database foundation.
And worst of all they tend to be arrogant.
a bad combination
So many clueless Database programmers, DBAs, & Instructors from all camps,(Even Oracle!),generally don't understand/appreciate the science behind database theory, don't fully understand the standard, confuse vendor extensions and quarks for the standard.
It's a sad scary state of affairs out in the field.
Many don't grasp basic principles like the cardinal rule: "Thy shall maintain Data integrity at all times".
The guys at work bet me that I was wrong.
So we decided to have a poll, silently quizing every expert we came across for 6 months.
So far (5 months later) the numbers indicate 90% of the the gurus don't know much.
Please before you master any DBMS product learn the standard practices & principles of handling data.
You don't even have to study E. F. CODD's papers.
Another handy resource: Database: Principles, Programming, Performance by Patrick O'Neil, Elizabeth O'Neil & Jim Gray (Editor)
Re. SQL + design, the best literature I've read on the topic is the documentation published by informix (now IBM). Obviously some of it is informix specific but the publication below is definitely worth reading regardless of what DB you use. It contains an excellent chapter on design. You can get the book in PDF from IBM Here
The general list of docs are Here
Elmasri & Navathe
A book that I found very helpful for learning SQL is Sams Teach Yourself SQL in 10 Minutes. When I first started learning SQL I mostly got everything from the early Slashcode sources and the MySQL manual as I needed it - not the best way to learn :-). I was a bit skeptical about the "10 minutes" approach, but each of the chapters actually did work out to about 10 minutes and the information was easy to understand (may have helped that I already knew some about SQL) and was fairly thorough. Another point that I really liked about it is that for the most part it only talked about the SQL standard, not just how one vendor implemented it. However, if an important vendor differed in their implementation, they would talk about it. This worked out great for me because I just wanted to know SQL basics and "best practices" and could figure out vendor specifics from their manuals.
btw, can someone tell me what the heck postgres means? or where it comes from? thanks
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
I just wanted to say hello to all the people linking from the future! HELLO!
Amen, brother.
I'm not totally against writing stored procedures and such into the DB, but I am against doing it indiscriminately across the board, especially when it is dictated from "on high" by some poseur who knows vastly less than you do about maintaining a project or managing dependencies across development, QA, and production environments.
At the last job I had (laid off due to the schemings of the same dumbfuck I'm about to describe), some new whiz comes in as the CTO and a totally pro-MS guy and tells the Java programmers, myself included, to just "as we go along, move all logic into DB."
This was solely because HE DIDN'T KNOW JAVA. He thought it was because we didn't know RDBMS that we dug our heels in a bit - one of the co-workers who is too stupid and inexperienced to know better had been told to "always do stored procedures" by someone she worked with in the past, so she just started doing it, making us look like the ones who were not "team players", when in fact, we just wanted to avoid a maintenance nightmare or engaging in busywork so that a CTO can understand the codebase, all of which supplied no benefit. We gave the arguments in a rational manner - the CTO would go, "well, that sounds good, but do it, anyway", giving no argument for his side. Of course, the co-worker thought we didn't know how to do it, so she gave us a "lesson" in how to write stored procedures. I just about walked out of work that day - I have written stored procedures in at least five different types of databases, and called them from five different languages, and my junior is telling me how to do it. It got worse - because of this Benedict Arnold on our "team", we also had naming standards handed to us -- when we already HAD 170+ TABLES and a naming standard on those. But the new CTO could not perceive that we had naming conventions already, and by God, we were going to have to put those in, and "convert tables as we move forward, when we are in that code". Yes, there really are people that stupid out there running things, folks. It's not just in Dilbert strips. I was struck almost speechless by the depths of his stupidity. Unfortunately, the market doesn't always oust folks like this even in down markets, as much as they deserve it.
Well, the rest of the programming team was canned by this jackass CTO who was a wanna-be DBA. And he is still there, still making my ex co-worker move logic into the DB for NO BENEFIT!!! Nothing is faster because of this, unless you know what you are doing - I know, I spent 2.5 years doing a lot of serious PL/SQL coding and tuning, and I know T-SQL pretty well, too. And neither of these people know what they are doing, trust me.
I was glad when I got canned. Even in this economy, I'd rather look for something else than to work with and for ignorant dumbfucks who are posing as knowledgeable, and somehow respected by even dumber CEOs. Call me cynical. [Shrug]. Actually, I have a very good work attitude and ethic, but this was beyond the pale.
But I will have marshmallows handy when they go down in flames for decisions and for hiring incompetent asskissers who can talk a good line to clueless CEOs.