May 12, 2011 at 9:25 am
What about the error with the schema:w00t:
May 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Another nice question, thanks!
May 13, 2011 at 9:06 am
Tom.Thomson (5/11/2011)
WayneS (5/11/2011)
Tom.Thomson (5/11/2011)
Nice question.One niggle: asking people to assume that a schema is valid when a table doesn't have a primary key may encourage a very bad habit if some of your audience don't know any better. Maybe "pretend" would have been a better choice of word than "assume".
Tom, I think it was referring to the schema "Playground", which the table was created in.
Ah, yes, probably. My mistake. I find it hard at times to remember that MS misuses this particular term so horribly, and my reaction :alien: was as it was because I interpreted "schema" as "schema" rather than as what MS calls "schema". Must remember loony MS terminology in future :(.
True many people are unaware of all the implications of "schema" in SQL as it covers many things "to make SQL databases and objects self-describing". Things like structure and integrity constraints, security and authorization specifications, object identifiers, features and packages, support of features, implementation information and sizing items, and schema is actually divided into "information" and "definition" schemas.
So loony :hehe: actually applies to the description of schema by many MS DBA's, not Microsoft itself. Unfortunately, many DBA's just never really learn how broadly the term applies and tend to assume the third position of the name resolution process only...
But we're all learning!!
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
May 26, 2011 at 1:06 am
Nice Question, QotD.. keep us bugging like this only 🙂
September 3, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Good Question. I had to read the flow of logic twice, but i selected the right option.
March 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Easy question. Thanks
Viewing 6 posts - 31 through 35 (of 35 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply