Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««56789»»

Know Your SQL Objects Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 1:09 PM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232, Visits: 1,046
Tom.Thomson (5/13/2011)
that Dutchmen (on at least one of them) think that English "may" always means "may or may not" and can't be used unless "may not" and "may" are both true - in British English people commonly either say "may or may not" or put the verb into the subjunctive (might) if they want that meaning (although there's certainly no hard and fast rule) and I still haven't a clue what Americans do with that may...only combination (evidently not what Kiwis and Dutchmen do, but that still leaves plenty of scope for variation).


Tom - I also think my first two wives and all children must be Dutch.
"I May" always means "I may" or "I may not".
Shhhh... Don't tell them I said that. I may get in trouble

Seriously though, America alone is a centuries old melting pot of unique global and regional dialects. Dialects of a language born elsewhere.
Is it statistically probable that we have any exact definition of how English is spoken or interpreted that works with Internet Blo0gging?
IMHO: Blogging, discussion, etc... are how we determine what the masses get from our written word today. At least those of us not lucky enough to have authored a book lately.
Post #1108703
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 1:20 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:00 AM
Points: 8,551, Visits: 9,043
SanDroid (5/13/2011)
[quote]Seriously though, America alone is a centuries old melting pot of unique global and regional dialects. Dialects of a language born elsewhere.
Is it statistically probable that we have any exact definition of how English is spoken or interpreted that works with Internet Blo0gging?
IMHO: Blogging, discussion, etc... are how we determine what the masses get from our written word today. At least those of us not lucky enough to have authored a book lately.

Yes, the USA had lots of input from lots of different languages; so it contributes a goodly chunk to the mixture of differnt varieties that English comes in.
Statistically probable? I don't think statistics would be meaningful for that question. My own estimate is that it's an absolute certainty that we have no such definition.


Tom
Post #1108706
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 2:09 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:36 AM
Points: 11,192, Visits: 11,091
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/13/2011)
I can't be responsible for sheep-reading and down under mis-interpreting the (other) colonist's English.



May implies it may or may not be true. It does not exclude the possibility that any particular object can be assigned to multiple objects.

I think it depends on how it is read, and perhaps on how the target of the word 'only' is assessed, as Tom mentioned. In any case, I think it is fair to say that clearer wording would have helped avoid this rather technical issue arising at all.

I'm with Hugo, for the most part.




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #1108722
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 2:19 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:36 AM
Points: 11,192, Visits: 11,091
Tom.Thomson (5/13/2011)
(1) New Zealanders (or at least one of then) don't use the position in the clause of "only" to distinguish the three possible meanings that the combination of "only" with "may" can express in the same way the most British people do...

I can't speak for all four million of us, but I had to choose between two interpretations:

"Pages in extents may be assigned to only one object"

1) "Pages in extents might (all) be assigned to a single object" (an observation)

or...if we are used to reading technical specifications and the like, perhaps as:

2) "You can only assign pages from an extent to the same single object" (an instruction).




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #1108725
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 2:59 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:38 AM
Points: 2,163, Visits: 2,189
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/13/2011)
SQLkiwi (5/13/2011)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/13/2011)
Comments encouraged on the changes.

"Extents may be owned by only one object".
This still reads (to me) as excluding the possibility that an extent may be owned by more than one object

"Rows can span multiple pages (excluding LOB data)"
I didn't read it this way originally, but it's possible to read that as saying that LOB data cannot span multiple pages.

Who'd be a QotD author/SSC editor?


I can't be responsible for sheep-reading and down under mis-interpreting the (other) colonist's English. May implies it may or may not be true. It does not exclude the possibility that any particular object can be assigned to multiple objects.


Steve,

If you lookup may in a dictionary you will notice that item 4 is: "shall, must —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation."

So it is perfectly reasonable to read that as saying that the pages in an extent can only be assigned to a single object. (Which is how I read it.)

You have to love our language, the same wording can mean multiple things, which sure doesn't make tests/questions easy to write. (And I have a fair amount of experience working with analysis and reporting on the validity and reliability of questions on a test from a prior life. In our case new questions were never counted in the score of the test taker until we had enough data to verify that the question was actually working, so it took almost a year before a new question could be put into production.)
Post #1108733
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:17 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:00 AM
Points: 8,551, Visits: 9,043
SQLkiwi (5/13/2011)
Tom.Thomson (5/13/2011)
(1) New Zealanders (or at least one of then) don't use the position in the clause of "only" to distinguish the three possible meanings that the combination of "only" with "may" can express in the same way the most British people do...

I can't speak for all four million of us, but I had to choose between two interpretations:

"Pages in extents may be assigned to only one object"

1) "Pages in extents might (all) be assigned to a single object" (an observation)

or...if we are used to reading technical specifications and the like, perhaps as:

2) "You can only assign pages from an extent to the same single object" (an instruction).

Yes, I had the same two to choose between but because "only" came where it did I decided it probably didn't exclude the multiple objects case (but if only had come immediately before "to" I would have decided it was intended to exclude that case). And other positions of only (immediately before "be" or after "object" or before "pages" would indicate more or less probability that the exclusive meaning was intended or point to a third meaning which in this context makes no sense. I suspect this effect of word order is either weaker in NZ or altogether different there.
It is very hard to write things that mean the same to everybody, and it is also a very neglected skill (and I'm not much good at it - often when I remember to try I get horribly verbose).


Tom
Post #1108819
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 3:52 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:12 PM
Points: 1,263, Visits: 1,081
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/13/2011)

Brandie wrote a good question, but I can see the confusion, so I've edited it.

Comments encouraged on the changes.


I'm even more confused now ...

The edited correct answer reads:
[...] Rows CAN span multiple pages.
[...] Ref: Pages and Extents - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190969.aspx Rows CANNOT span pages

That's perhaps my lack of command of English (being Austrian = non-native English), but to me this looks like a contradiction.
What's even more confusing: For some questions, BOL definitions are deemed the ultima ratio, no discussion allowed and that's how it is (even if one's own logical understanding, better knowledge and common sense tell you the opposite).
In this case--well, better knowledge prevails over BOL (or should I say the interpretation of that item in BOL by the majority of the members of this forum?).

While personally I welcome the learning, even if that means to correct or contradict the 'official' documentation (read BOL), I do miss a firm steer in this respect--it should either be the plain facts that count, or 'book knowledge' (how it's being offcially published by the vendor).

Please, don't get me wrong--I'm viewing this from the learning perspective; and the above 'correct answer' would leave me as a novice with a mouth wide open, questioning my ability to comprehend.

Thanks,
Michael
Post #1109168
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 8:50 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 2:28 PM
Points: 33,062, Visits: 15,174
michael.kaufmann (5/16/2011)


I'm even more confused now ...

The edited correct answer reads:
[...] Rows CAN span multiple pages.
[...] Ref: Pages and Extents - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190969.aspx Rows CANNOT span pages


BOL is wrong on that page. The overflow and lob data imply that the data that makes up a row can be on two different pages (or more). I think the BOL author copied from previous verisons, and despite later in the paragraph that it lists "this restriction may be relaxed", they have not corrected the initial sentence. It should read that non-variable length data types may not span across pages. So I can't have 9k worth of INT columns.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1109418
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 8:54 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 2:28 PM
Points: 33,062, Visits: 15,174
UMG Developer (5/13/2011)


Steve,

If you lookup may in a dictionary you will notice that item 4 is: "shall, must —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation."

So it is perfectly reasonable to read that as saying that the pages in an extent can only be assigned to a single object. (Which is how I read it.)



I'm not sure I find that a good definition of "may", though this isn't really law. I think more about "may I have a cup of coffee". This is a question.

In terms of "can be assigned to one object", that speaks to me of a possibility. It is possible. An extent can be assigned to one object. An extent can also be assigned to multiple objects. not the same extent, but any non-specific extent can either be one object or multiple objects.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1109422
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 9:09 AM


Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 13, 2014 3:03 PM
Points: 594, Visits: 655
Paul Randal (5/13/2011)
Steve - I got this wrong because your wording is broken. Extents can NOT be owned by multiple objects. When an extent is a mixed extent, it is 'owned' by the allocation system - technically object ID 99. The individual pages are owned by multiple objects, but none of the objects own the extent.


Thank you Paul! I thought I was a little crazy for having that thought when I first read the question. The question made me think that somehow ownership of the whole mixed extent might somehow be "shared" by multiple objects and I was puzzling over how that might be true. Guess I have not gone through enough MCM reading material yet...

Great comment and a great question and discussion! As always, the more controversial the QOTD, the better I like it as it really opens the topic up.


Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
Post #1109446
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««56789»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse