I disagree with the troll mod, but it is understandable. The Redundant mod doesn't make sense. And, how can I argue with Underrated.:-)
This post, which trolls more than me gets: Funny=1
Yes, I find it to be funny. (From his vantage point.)
I'd have to think that the majority of moderators themselves are biased towards posts that make fun of any belief that isn't theirs. Oh well. It doesn't really matter.
Needs are being found all the time that no ammount of forethought would have found.
I have a hard time believing that, thought I will not debate it, because I understand that it could be true.
Maybe the designer (or the requirements makers) didn't think the project through. Certainly, a project can be so defined that only a few, non-schema-busting changes are required.
If the program is being made to generate a business, and the business is continually updating their model to meet new clients, a different approach would be required. The database should be patched a lot, at first, and then a cut-off point is needed, and the database should go through a complete redesign. From then on, no real structures should be changed. Because, at that point, there should have enough insight to know how to catch most future changes easily.
Certainly, there are times that de-normalization of the schema is necessary for good perfomance or other reasons.
I shudder at the thought.
Oracle, in their documentation, goes through the decision of whether the DB is for OLTP or for a Data Warehouse. Nomalization is required in the former, and sometimes hurtful in the latter.
If you are a data warehouse, completely, than you may need to go without normalization. However, it is likely, that normalization will help anyway. So, it can be resolved with two schemas. One normalized, the other not. The normalized schema is the "authorative" one. The non-normalized schema being created periodically from the normalized data, depending on requirements for up-to-date data.
Ah, you could not have done a better job of displaying your fallacy.
The RDBMS does not store "facts". Or at least, that is not its job. It's job is to store "data". Hence "database", not "knowledgebase". Two *completely* different things.
The RDBMS is not defined by the data it stores either. It is defined by its schema. The schema itself is enough to understand an entire project. Both between the tables and columns, and the foreign keys in between them all.
The schema is not trivial. It is an answer to the question that the project provides.
Project: Here are my complexities, how shall I answer it?
RDBMS: With this schema.
Once the schema is done, the answer is there. The data and the program merely make it all work. Given the rigidity and simplicity of an RDBMS as opposed to a program, it is obviously the best solution.
And now, to change anything, means that the project was not fully understood, or the project has changed. Both of which need one person (or group) to redesign it, and try to get it right this time.
and queries are propositions.
Only at a very few instances. Mostly, queries retrieve data.
It's logic programming. Programming. Programming. Not Stone.
And let me guess, designing should be thrown out the window for losers to eat too? It's design, design, design! Programming is a method of coding that which was designed. Logic is used mostly for design, and sometimes in coding, when a "trick" is needed, for whatever the reason.
Normalization may be done by Normal people.
I can't help but laugh at this one. Most people are not gifted with the ability to normalize easily and decisively. DBAs make better DBAs, and programmers make better programmers (usually). Each has their strentghs. (DBAs being TJs, and programmers being NPs; just a guess). To say that just about anyone can do such a job is ridiculous.
It doesn't require godhood
True, but is does require someone gifted in that area. (I use the word "gifted" based on the book "Gifts Differing").
The theory of the immutable, pre-determined database schema makes the DBA
No, it makes the DBA a good DBA. Should the DBA let just any changes go through, the database is doomed. Sure, some changes may be needed, but it is only if the project was misunderstood, or if the project changed. This should be an unusual case.
It's not necessary or correct.
Why not? I have already mentioned why it is necessary and correct. It is necessary in order to not wreack havoc in the database. It is correct, in that it is part of design, which is what drives programming. To have programming drive design would be backwards.
Typically the problem arises when the DBA is out of touch with the data.
That could be. But if so, he is not doing his job. And I assume that to be unlikely. Or, the developers and the DBA have a conflict in how to resolve the project. If that is the case, a solution agreeable by both is needed, and then the DBA has final word on the design. But this needs to be done *before* any real coding happens.
Quit picking on developers.
I was both a developer and a DBA. Each has their roles. Stop trying to interchange them.
Either you haven't RTMed, or you didn't explain very well. The documentation has it here. Just make both masters and both slaves, and hope you don't trample on each other.
Now that you have the key to complete disaster, I will warn you since you obviously don't know this. This is a stupid idea. Hmm... that not harsh enough. If you were working for me, I'd reconsider your employment if you came up with this crazy idea.
You should never, ever, ever, ever, have more than one person working on the same schema while coding! Either the database will be driven by your code, which is a quick way to denormalize everthing, and wreck havok, or more than one person will drive the design, and will denormalize and wreck havoc.
Only one person (or group) should make decisions on a schema, and it should be done, *before* any coding is done. The database structure will lend structure to the program itself.
I was a DBA for Oracle at a small company. You wouldn't believe what those idiots (Andrew, you listening?:-)) wanted to do, and did when I went on vacation! Instead of coding properly, they added tables to make it easier. And then they wonder why the DB slows down on their queries. Or they want to know a concrete method (query or idea) of encapsulating all data of a certain type, and wonder why I can't do it, since they left so many holes in the system.
The database should be designed to handle the system. And that it much more important than coding. Both because of speed and structural reasons. The only time the database should be changed, is when there was a mistake in the original design, or the project it is for has changed dramatically.
So, their is a way to do it, but its on par with logging in as root all the time, so things are easier. Don't do it.
Than what separates actions from one another? Beside that, there is a rules that no two items can be in the same place at the same time. If time didn't exist, than two things would either, be allowed to be in the same place (our perception just doesn't see it), or no two things can ever be in the same place. This latter part can further be extrapolated to say that no two things have the *ability* to be in the same place, ever. I believe both of these to be untrue, so time must exist.
Two biggies for me are 2>a to send errors to a file named "a". And strace, when you really need to know what a prgram is doing.
I couldn't live without strace. I had a font problem with X, strace told me where the problem was. xine wasn't playing sound, strace showed be that it was hitting the wrong entry in/dev/. The list goes on.
For Debian users, apt-spy (requires installation of the package) to find fast sites for package downloads, and apt-listchanges to list what all the changes are.
To wow silly Windows users, eject and aafire (part of aalib).
Why isn't -j2 good enough for a two processor box?
Thanx about watch and pgrep. Especially watch. I can't believed I never knew about that one.
hdparm just scares me. I know it shouldn't. But after suffering an hd crash I don't want to mess with a working drive. Though should I ever add a new drive, I'll have to think about playing with it.
Finally, I can watch the Zed team without going to dbzoa.net!
Re: it's watching a bunch of rich, fat, overpaid,
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If it wasn't for unions, we wouldn't have the 40-hour work week, paid sick time, or probably any other benifits.
Possibly. Workers sticking together for their own rights is a good thing. Being forced too, as in a union, is not. But to each their own.
Oh wait...I'm on Slashdot, talking to a bunch of young single males with no familes or social lives who are either independant contractors or H1B workers....
I agree with you on the young single male part. I believe most slashdotters are of that class, and thus support free software as they support Socialism. A few more years, and they'll make a real choice. Whether they change or not is irrelevant, but at least they'll understand more about their decisions.
Your comment itself, however, I believe is contradictory. The young crowd *wants* unions. How else are they to get high paying jobs without working for a few years? From reading/. comments in the past, I'd guess most slashdotters want unions.
it's watching a bunch of rich, fat, overpaid,
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 2, Funny
it's watching a bunch of rich, fat, overpaid, overhyped
Until here I thought you were talking about union workers.
dot-con executives
Well, they are usually a waste, but you should calm down before you post something. I almost thought you were CmdrTaco.
I've always felt that to be a stupid answer. Not only does it rely on many conditions (incandescent bulbs, bulbs are withing reach, room is not cold (imagine it was a freezer bulb)), it's also using a method not in the question.
Normally, you want people to think "outside the box", but that is when people create their own boundaries, such as connecting nine dots with four lines, but here, there is no box, you are expecting the person to invent a method that "should" work.
Only problem with this UPS thing, is that I'd have to shutdown my computer to put it in! And lose my uptime, no way!
Besides, I don't use electricity anyway. It's all coming from monopolistic power companies that don't opensource their generators. My computer runs completely on GNUicity (power is generated everytime RMS blows a fuse). I guess that makes my system GNU/GNU/Linux. Or would that be GNU/Linux/GNU?
Slashdot Mirror
an username
Come on!
Whenever the "u" is long (pronounced like "you"), it is not considered to be a vowel where "a" turns into "an".
It's "an umbrella" but "a username".
Sheesh!
Would it help if I said it is a NAVY database?
Not really. It only helps in noting that it isn't a startup makng silly decisions.
Past that, I don't care who makes the design. Everyone makes mistakes. Although, it could be the best design. I just consider that to be unlikely.
You can believe the world was created 5762 years ago, but then we will all think you are truly ignorant.:P
:-)
Thanx for permission.
Anyway, I don't care if people think that I'm ignorant. You don't want to know what I think of them!
As long as we all allow each other to believe what they want.
OK, I must ask.
:-)
My comment, was modded:
Totals: Troll=1, Redundant=1, Underrated=1
I disagree with the troll mod, but it is understandable. The Redundant mod doesn't make sense. And, how can I argue with Underrated.
This post, which trolls more than me gets: Funny=1
Yes, I find it to be funny. (From his vantage point.)
I'd have to think that the majority of moderators themselves are biased towards posts that make fun of any belief that isn't theirs. Oh well. It doesn't really matter.
Needs are being found all the time that no ammount of forethought would have found.
:-)
I have a hard time believing that, thought I will not debate it, because I understand that it could be true.
Maybe the designer (or the requirements makers) didn't think the project through. Certainly, a project can be so defined that only a few, non-schema-busting changes are required.
If the program is being made to generate a business, and the business is continually updating their model to meet new clients, a different approach would be required. The database should be patched a lot, at first, and then a cut-off point is needed, and the database should go through a complete redesign. From then on, no real structures should be changed. Because, at that point, there should have enough insight to know how to catch most future changes easily.
INTP
Silly lazy-bum!
that likes to pretend he's an INTJ.
Oh, ok. that's better.
We know the world created itself a few billion years ago and not 5762 years ago (according to the Jewish counting).
That should either be "I believe the world...", or "We \"know\" the world...".
The world was created 5762 years ago. Believe what you want. If you can state your belief as fact, so can I state mine as fact.
Certainly, there are times that de-normalization of the schema is necessary for good perfomance or other reasons.
I shudder at the thought.
Oracle, in their documentation, goes through the decision of whether the DB is for OLTP or for a Data Warehouse. Nomalization is required in the former, and sometimes hurtful in the latter.
If you are a data warehouse, completely, than you may need to go without normalization. However, it is likely, that normalization will help anyway. So, it can be resolved with two schemas. One normalized, the other not. The normalized schema is the "authorative" one. The non-normalized schema being created periodically from the normalized data, depending on requirements for up-to-date data.
The RDBMS stores facts,
Ah, you could not have done a better job of displaying your fallacy.
The RDBMS does not store "facts". Or at least, that is not its job. It's job is to store "data". Hence "database", not "knowledgebase". Two *completely* different things.
The RDBMS is not defined by the data it stores either. It is defined by its schema. The schema itself is enough to understand an entire project. Both between the tables and columns, and the foreign keys in between them all.
The schema is not trivial. It is an answer to the question that the project provides.
Project: Here are my complexities, how shall I answer it?
RDBMS: With this schema.
Once the schema is done, the answer is there. The data and the program merely make it all work. Given the rigidity and simplicity of an RDBMS as opposed to a program, it is obviously the best solution.
And now, to change anything, means that the project was not fully understood, or the project has changed. Both of which need one person (or group) to redesign it, and try to get it right this time.
and queries are propositions.
Only at a very few instances. Mostly, queries retrieve data.
It's logic programming. Programming. Programming. Not Stone.
And let me guess, designing should be thrown out the window for losers to eat too? It's design, design, design! Programming is a method of coding that which was designed. Logic is used mostly for design, and sometimes in coding, when a "trick" is needed, for whatever the reason.
Normalization may be done by Normal people.
I can't help but laugh at this one. Most people are not gifted with the ability to normalize easily and decisively. DBAs make better DBAs, and programmers make better programmers (usually). Each has their strentghs. (DBAs being TJs, and programmers being NPs; just a guess). To say that just about anyone can do such a job is ridiculous.
It doesn't require godhood
True, but is does require someone gifted in that area. (I use the word "gifted" based on the book "Gifts Differing").
The theory of the immutable, pre-determined database schema makes the DBA
No, it makes the DBA a good DBA. Should the DBA let just any changes go through, the database is doomed. Sure, some changes may be needed, but it is only if the project was misunderstood, or if the project changed. This should be an unusual case.
It's not necessary or correct.
Why not? I have already mentioned why it is necessary and correct. It is necessary in order to not wreack havoc in the database. It is correct, in that it is part of design, which is what drives programming. To have programming drive design would be backwards.
Typically the problem arises when the DBA is out of touch with the data.
That could be. But if so, he is not doing his job. And I assume that to be unlikely. Or, the developers and the DBA have a conflict in how to resolve the project. If that is the case, a solution agreeable by both is needed, and then the DBA has final word on the design. But this needs to be done *before* any real coding happens.
Quit picking on developers.
I was both a developer and a DBA. Each has their roles. Stop trying to interchange them.
What does "Kills Tumors Dead" mean? Does it meam that it kills tumors, or that it kills "dead" tumors?
Either you haven't RTMed, or you didn't explain very well. The documentation has it here. Just make both masters and both slaves, and hope you don't trample on each other.
:-)) wanted to do, and did when I went on vacation! Instead of coding properly, they added tables to make it easier. And then they wonder why the DB slows down on their queries. Or they want to know a concrete method (query or idea) of encapsulating all data of a certain type, and wonder why I can't do it, since they left so many holes in the system.
Now that you have the key to complete disaster, I will warn you since you obviously don't know this. This is a stupid idea. Hmm... that not harsh enough. If you were working for me, I'd reconsider your employment if you came up with this crazy idea.
You should never, ever, ever, ever, have more than one person working on the same schema while coding! Either the database will be driven by your code, which is a quick way to denormalize everthing, and wreck havok, or more than one person will drive the design, and will denormalize and wreck havoc.
Only one person (or group) should make decisions on a schema, and it should be done, *before* any coding is done. The database structure will lend structure to the program itself.
I was a DBA for Oracle at a small company. You wouldn't believe what those idiots (Andrew, you listening?
The database should be designed to handle the system. And that it much more important than coding. Both because of speed and structural reasons. The only time the database should be changed, is when there was a mistake in the original design, or the project it is for has changed dramatically.
So, their is a way to do it, but its on par with logging in as root all the time, so things are easier. Don't do it.
No two fermions... Bosons can occupy the same energy state at the same "time"...
Assuming you believe bosons exist. And even then, fermions definitely exist, thus not changing anything said.
Time does not exist
Than what separates actions from one another? Beside that, there is a rules that no two items can be in the same place at the same time. If time didn't exist, than two things would either, be allowed to be in the same place (our perception just doesn't see it), or no two things can ever be in the same place. This latter part can further be extrapolated to say that no two things have the *ability* to be in the same place, ever. I believe both of these to be untrue, so time must exist.
We all vie for eMacs, with vigor, no less, but rather more.
Are there any rants you'd like me to ask about? If so, please explain.
And, do you pronounce it mohsheh, or moishee?
Heh, I read it as "dotsa" before I realized it was dot za. Sounds cool though.
:-)
Hmm... I guess the news site should go down soon.
Two biggies for me are 2>a to send errors to a file named "a". And strace, when you really need to know what a prgram is doing.
/dev/. The list goes on.
I couldn't live without strace. I had a font problem with X, strace told me where the problem was. xine wasn't playing sound, strace showed be that it was hitting the wrong entry in
For Debian users, apt-spy (requires installation of the package) to find fast sites for package downloads, and apt-listchanges to list what all the changes are.
To wow silly Windows users, eject and aafire (part of aalib).
make -j3
Why isn't -j2 good enough for a two processor box?
Thanx about watch and pgrep. Especially watch. I can't believed I never knew about that one.
hdparm just scares me. I know it shouldn't. But after suffering an hd crash I don't want to mess with a working drive. Though should I ever add a new drive, I'll have to think about playing with it.
Well, it's black, and has a big "X" on it.
Finally, I can watch the Zed team without going to dbzoa.net!
If it wasn't for unions, we wouldn't have the 40-hour work week, paid sick time, or probably any other benifits.
/. comments in the past, I'd guess most slashdotters want unions.
Possibly. Workers sticking together for their own rights is a good thing. Being forced too, as in a union, is not. But to each their own.
Oh wait...I'm on Slashdot, talking to a bunch of young single males with no familes or social lives who are either independant contractors or H1B workers....
I agree with you on the young single male part. I believe most slashdotters are of that class, and thus support free software as they support Socialism. A few more years, and they'll make a real choice. Whether they change or not is irrelevant, but at least they'll understand more about their decisions.
Your comment itself, however, I believe is contradictory. The young crowd *wants* unions. How else are they to get high paying jobs without working for a few years? From reading
it's watching a bunch of rich, fat, overpaid, overhyped
Until here I thought you were talking about union workers.
dot-con executives
Well, they are usually a waste, but you should calm down before you post something. I almost thought you were CmdrTaco.
This one is getting a bit too well-known - I first heard it perhaps 20 years ago.
I have a book, "The complete Book of Games and Stunts" published in 1956, that has this problem in it.
The second light will be off but will be hot.
I've always felt that to be a stupid answer. Not only does it rely on many conditions (incandescent bulbs, bulbs are withing reach, room is not cold (imagine it was a freezer bulb)), it's also using a method not in the question.
Normally, you want people to think "outside the box", but that is when people create their own boundaries, such as connecting nine dots with four lines, but here, there is no box, you are expecting the person to invent a method that "should" work.
Only problem with this UPS thing, is that I'd have to shutdown my computer to put it in! And lose my uptime, no way!
Besides, I don't use electricity anyway. It's all coming from monopolistic power companies that don't opensource their generators. My computer runs completely on GNUicity (power is generated everytime RMS blows a fuse). I guess that makes my system GNU/GNU/Linux. Or would that be GNU/Linux/GNU?
Putty is just a silly copy of am image from elsewhere, trying to go other places.