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 «««23456»»

Elementary Key Attributes Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 3:01 PM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:26 AM
Points: 1,521, Visits: 3,036
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
Ernie Schlangen (10/6/2011)
I make no comment on using the encrypted Google web page you cite in French, because I don't speak French and am apparently not so security conscious as to avoid the vanilla Google page.

In French??? Where on earth did that come from?

Did I type "fr" instead of "gd"? Actually, I'm pretty sure I didn't because I think I just copied (copy and paste, just mouse clicks, no typing) my home page address!

Too bad we can't all be as intelligent, learned and multilingual as we'd like. Considering that your current nom de post and signature lines certainly look to be in French, I'd guess that's where on earth from whence Ernie's confusion arose.
Post #1186844
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 3:28 PM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:47 PM
Points: 3,292, Visits: 1,974
It looks like the encrypted Google page was in Gaelic.
Post #1186854
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 3:37 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:04 AM
Points: 1,623, Visits: 357
john.arnott (10/6/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
Ernie Schlangen (10/6/2011)
I make no comment on using the encrypted Google web page you cite in French, because I don't speak French and am apparently not so security conscious as to avoid the vanilla Google page.

In French??? Where on earth did that come from?

Did I type "fr" instead of "gd"? Actually, I'm pretty sure I didn't because I think I just copied (copy and paste, just mouse clicks, no typing) my home page address!

Too bad we can't all be as intelligent, learned and multilingual as we'd like. Considering that your current nom de post and signature lines certainly look to be in French, I'd guess that's where on earth from whence Ernie's confusion arose.


That is indeed the case. I didn't look at the link you posted since you had already stated it was in something other than English. Even if I had, I know even less Scottish Gaelic (i.e. none and had to lookup gd to find out what language it referred to) than I do French (almost none)! All I was really trying to say was that the results I saw came from the www.google.com page in English and that my comment was based solely on this, which is not necessarily the same results that you were looking at (language aside).
Post #1186859
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:33 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:01 AM
Points: 8,684, Visits: 9,212
Ernie Schlangen (10/6/2011)
I didn't look at the link you posted since you had already stated it was in something other than English. Even if I had, I know even less Scottish Gaelic (i.e. none and had to lookup gd to find out what language it referred to) than I do French (almost none)! All I was really trying to say was that the results I saw came from the www.google.com page in English and that my comment was based solely on this, which is not necessarily the same results that you were looking at (language aside).

OK, that's fair enough, you guessed the language from my current SQLSC nickname - but surely you know the layout of Google's front page well enough that it doesn't really matter what language "advanced search" and "I guess I'm lucky" (or whatever the English versions are) and so on are in, particularly since typing eknf and hitting enter is all you would need to do. Anyway, it seems unlikely that a search at encrypted.google.com should produce results different from the same search at www.google.com, and even less likely that my choice of google interface language should mean I get more results than someone who chooses English (I am pretty sure that there are no results in Scots Gaelic for eknf), and it was the claim that such a strange discrepancy did indeed exist that I was objecting to.


Tom
Post #1186877
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 5:51 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:01 AM
Points: 8,684, Visits: 9,212
L' Eomot Inversé (10/5/2011)
I find it quite frightening that so few people know enough about normalisation to get this one right.

I feel much less frightened now: 22% out of 700 is a lot better than 2% out of 200.


Tom
Post #1186878
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 6:07 PM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 27, 2014 6:26 AM
Points: 1,521, Visits: 3,036
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/5/2011)
I find it quite frightening that so few people know enough about normalisation to get this one right.

I feel much less frightened now: 22% out of 700 is a lot better than 2% out of 200.
I must be an inveterate cynic. I don't find it at all surprising that the percentage of sucess has risen so dramatically after the next day's newsletter included the correct answers. (never was frightened, though)
Post #1186881
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 2:21 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:01 AM
Points: 8,684, Visits: 9,212
john.arnott (10/6/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/5/2011)
I find it quite frightening that so few people know enough about normalisation to get this one right.

I feel much less frightened now: 22% out of 700 is a lot better than 2% out of 200.
I must be an inveterate cynic. I don't find it at all surprising that the percentage of sucess has risen so dramatically after the next day's newsletter included the correct answers. (never was frightened, though)

Now that you mention it, that certainly looks like a possible explanation. Much more likely than a spontaneous improvement.


Tom
Post #1186962
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 6:20 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:25 AM
Points: 5,306, Visits: 9,686
L' Eomot Inversé (10/7/2011)

Now that you mention it, that certainly looks like a possible explanation. Much more likely than a spontaneous improvement.

Yes, that and the fact that Steve added to the question the number of boxes that you have to tick.

John
Post #1187030
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 8:01 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:38 AM
Points: 3,668, Visits: 72,432
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
mtassin (10/5/2011)
I think a big part of this is the flavor of Normalization Kool-aid we're using.

For instance, this paper that's referenced isn't necessarily Normalization Form mainstream.


I find it amusing to see a claim that a seminal paper by the man who id now director of the UCLA Web Information System Lanboratory and holder of UCLA's N. E. Friedmann Chair in Knowledge Science, an associate editor of VLDB Journal, who has been program chair or general chair of VLDB (more than once), SIGMOD CMD, NACLo, NID, EDBT, and chaired HotSWUp in April this year should be dismissed as not necessarily mainstream.


Look, you've been drinking his Kool-aid. And you agree with him.
But I also find no mention of EKNF on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization

I'm not saying it's an invalid concept, what I'm saying is that expecting people to know a branch of Normalization that isn't part of the maintstream, and then getting worried when only 2% of us know what the heck you're talking about, and you talking about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread is just silly.




--Mark Tassin
MCITP - SQL Server DBA
Proud member of the Anti-RBAR alliance.
For help with Performance click this link
For tips on how to post your problems
Post #1187125
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 7:25 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:01 AM
Points: 8,684, Visits: 9,212
mtassin (10/7/2011)
L' Eomot Inversé (10/6/2011)
mtassin (10/5/2011)
I think a big part of this is the flavor of Normalization Kool-aid we're using.

For instance, this paper that's referenced isn't necessarily Normalization Form mainstream.


I find it amusing to see a claim that a seminal paper by the man who id now director of the UCLA Web Information System Lanboratory and holder of UCLA's N. E. Friedmann Chair in Knowledge Science, an associate editor of VLDB Journal, who has been program chair or general chair of VLDB (more than once), SIGMOD CMD, NACLo, NID, EDBT, and chaired HotSWUp in April this year should be dismissed as not necessarily mainstream.


Look, you've been drinking his Kool-aid. And you agree with him.
But I also find no mention of EKNF on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization

I'm not saying it's an invalid concept, what I'm saying is that expecting people to know a branch of Normalization that isn't part of the maintstream, and then getting worried when only 2% of us know what the heck you're talking about, and you talking about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread is just silly.

Frankly I find these repeated kool-aid cracks repulsive. I usually try to be less bloody offensive than you seem to regard as the norm for serious technical debate - but of course maybe you don't think this topic is worthy of serious debate.

Ok, maybe I understand where you are coming from. Your concept of what may be useful and relevant is what's in Date's textbook and consequently (since most people think Date walks on water) what's in Wikipedia (without regard to the talk pages, which of course ought to be an essential part of the discussion although you haven't looked there).

I can easily change your view the wikipedia view by changing the page you reference (the inclusion of EKNF on the page you reference was suggested some time ago and has been supported by other comments on the talk page , with no adverse comments at all, so such a change would be perfectly reasonable). I can't change Date's text book, and he won't because he regards the representation principle as nonsense, in distinct conflict with, for example, Ron[ald] Fagin - whom you maybe regard as mainstream as he is responsible for the standard definitions of 4NF and 5NF - as made eminently clear by Date's very public attack on Fagin's DKNF suggestion - although I agree that RF got that one wrong, and CJD was right to challenge it, the style of the attack and some of its content (suggesting that attempting to achieve uany useful degree of representation was a waste of time) was appalling. You appear to be relying on an appeal to an "eminent authority" to suggest that anything you have not been taught by that "eminent authority" is irrelevant in our field of work.

If that's the way you think, I have to accept that that's the way you are and give up on changing your mind - I just have to hope that that silliness doesn't influence other people who may read this discussion.


Tom
Post #1187433
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««23456»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse