February 16, 2010 at 9:08 pm
steve dassin (2/16/2010)
PaulB-TheOneAndOnly (2/16/2010)
What's your background?Do you have any foundation in relational theory? No? ==> check C. J. Date
What does relational theory have to do with sql?:-) The problem is where do you go after reading (and understanding) Date? I went to Dataphor 🙂
best,
steve
You REALLY need to find another wardrum to beat. Since we're playing out this old dance, let me save us all some time...
"You mean the dataphor that runs ON TOP OF SQL Server?"...
"NULL sux and is used by closed minded microsoft idiots..."
"You mean the 3rd manifesto? The books whose every 18 or so editions over the last 20 years have all been prefaced by "this is purely theory and doesn't really work in practice"....?"
"You have your head stuck in the sand and will never see the light?...."
"Yup and happy to be there with the real of the unenlightened industry..."
phew... That about does it. Can we all slink back to our respective corners and not have this sophomoric conversation again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 16, 2010 at 9:12 pm
RBarryYoung (2/16/2010)
I said that the rift was pointless, and it is. Either SQL and Relational Databases are different things or they are not. But 30 years of bile, name-calling, pontification, and adamant refusal to understand the pragmatic needs of modern databases? Pointless. If we are really not in Relational Databases, as they insist, then they should get over and move on, and stop spending their time telling us how cursed we are because we won't worship at their feet on their "One True Religion".
Please direct me to any work written by Chris Date that justifies your description. Source and context please. Everything by him on the topic that I know of is reasoned, pragmatic and characterised by detailed arguments and sensible discussion rather than rhetoric or bile. Even to the extent of giving others space to put contrary points of view and then dealing with both argument and counter arguments even-handedly.
For sure Date has had to deal with some ignorant criticism in the online world and he has often responded robustly (on DBDebunk for example). That doesn't detract from the value and quality of his arguments. It is not reasonable to expect that he rebut every online criticism with detailed discussion when he has written so extensively on the topic elsewhere. If people can't be bothered to inform themselves first then why should they be entitled to more than a dismissive reply? There are examples where Date has responded online to coherent arguments and criticism with due respect and thoughtful answers but those are few and far between because the quality of online discussions is so frequently very poor indeed.
and there have been plenty of those on both sides of the null discussion.
Well, there have been a few of those, but not many. But even those suffered from irrelevancy to the other sides. But I welcome you to make a list of those reasoned arguments for us.
That's just the kind of response that makes reasoned discussion and progress impossible. Rather than furthering discussion on the points already made extensively in the works of Codd, Date, Darwen and many others you just say you would like me to repeat them! Is it any wonder if the people concerned have no respect for so-called critics who can't even be bothered to read what they have written?
Codd certainly didn't dispute that, nor did he dispute that nulls unavoidably give rise to incorrect results.
He never agreed with this either.
Apparently you aren't familiar with his extensive discussion in Chapter 9 of "Relational Database Writings 1991-1994" where Codd does just that and gives an example of a 3VL query that returns an incorrect result. He points out that this could only be resolved by having a tautology detection system - a problem which is known to be NP-complete and therefore not a feasible solution. He does disagree with others on how important this issue is but he still admits that incorrect results are caused by nulls. By the way, this is all in a book authored by Chris Date. Again, I recommend it to you.
February 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm
like2innovate (2/15/2010)
Currently I intend to refer to "Beginning SQL Server 2008 for Developers From Novice to Professional" by Robin Dewson (Apress publishers) while using SQL 2008 Developers Edition. Just wondering what book others here would for learning SQL Server 2008 for a complete newbie ?
Once you've managed to digest most of the Books Online reference @ Microsoft, I would start with pretty much anything from Ken Henderson or Kalen Delaney. Many of the other Microsoft Press books are good IMO. For a heavier read, look for the SQL Server MVP "deep dive" bookss (by many of the regular posters here), anything from Itzik ben Gan.
Once you can digest brother Itzik's books, you're probably looking for books on specific topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 16, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Matt Miller (#4) (2/16/2010)
steve dassin (2/16/2010)
PaulB-TheOneAndOnly (2/16/2010)
What's your background?Do you have any foundation in relational theory? No? ==> check C. J. Date
What does relational theory have to do with sql?:-) The problem is where do you go after reading (and understanding) Date? I went to Dataphor 🙂
best,
steve
You REALLY need to find another wardrum to beat. Since we're playing out this old dance, let me save us all some time...
"You mean the dataphor that runs ON TOP OF SQL Server?"...
"NULL sux and is used by closed minded microsoft idiots..."
"You mean the 3rd manifesto? The books whose every 18 or so editions over the last 20 years have all been prefaced by "this is purely theory and doesn't really work in practice"....?"
"You have your head stuck in the sand and will never see the light?...."
"Yup and happy to be there with the real of the unenlightened industry..."
phew... That about does it. Can we all slink back to our respective corners and not have this sophomoric conversation again?
And I was dubious that some people had matured. My bad! 🙂
best,
steve
February 16, 2010 at 10:27 pm
David Portas (2/16/2010)
RBarryYoung (2/16/2010)
I said that the rift was pointless, and it is. Either SQL and Relational Databases are different things or they are not. But 30 years of bile, name-calling, pontification, and adamant refusal to understand the pragmatic needs of modern databases? Pointless. If we are really not in Relational Databases, as they insist, then they should get over and move on, and stop spending their time telling us how cursed we are because we won't worship at their feet on their "One True Religion".Please direct me to any work written by Chris Date that justifies your description. Source and context please. Everything by him on the topic that I know of is reasoned, pragmatic and characterised by detailed arguments and sensible discussion rather than rhetoric or bile. Even to the extent of giving others space to put contrary points of view and then dealing with both argument and counter arguments even-handedly.
For sure Date has had to deal with some ignorant criticism in the online world and he has often responded robustly (on DBDebunk for example).
Thanks for supplying the answer to your own question, Dave. DBDebunk is not "robust" response to criticism. It is a disgraceful travesty of a site displaying the emotional maturity of a nursery of two-year-olds and the intellectual "open-mindedness" of a paranoid schizophrenic, and no group of self-proclaimed leaders of an academic discipline should have anything to do with it. I like you David, and despite our disagreement on technical & theoretical issues of SQL and/or relational databases, I consider that mere disagreement. But if you seriously believe that there is *anything* acceptable or defensible about that site, then we disagree about acceptable and ethical behavior at such a deep and fundamental level that I am not sure that we have enough of a common basis for meaningful discussion.
I felt largely as I have stated here wrt to the technical issues and relevance long before I found that site. And, yes, I though a may have used a toned down list of those adjectives above before that, that site is so disgusting, that the above is the most benevolent way that I can credit to it's contributors. But, no amount of benevolence can turn DBDebunk.com into "robust response" David. For one thing, most of what I read there wasn't even a direct response to criticism. Much of it is just random out-of-context quotes about DB practices, cherry-picked from respectable DB practitioners (some of them members of this very site) and supplemented with irrational and intentionally ignorant "ripostes". As for "robust" responses, that is what we are doing here, David, what they are doing is complete hate-mongering.
In fact I could go on for a week about what self-obsessed jackasses those authors are, but the truth is that it is such an embarrassment that I hadn't even planned to mention it, but, since it was mentioned, I fell the need to be clear about what that place really is.
That doesn't detract from the value and quality of his arguments.
Of course it does, how can it NOT? I am a fan of both Hemmingway's and Picasso's work, but the knowledge that they both engaged in some pretty severe misogynistic behavior definitely detracts from my perception of them and their work. And I like their work, even before this I was pretty unhappy with Date, Pascal, et.al's work. Their behavior on that site is inexcusable and I am a person who believes that those who would aspire to lead us need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
It is not reasonable to expect that he rebut every online criticism with detailed discussion when he has written so extensively on the topic elsewhere.
Who the heck asked them to? I sure didn't. I am curious to know why they couldn't handle themselves in a more adult and respectable manner the way the leaders of almost every academic discipline does? If they don't want answer a question then they don't. Why don't these guys have the intelligence, disciple, academic respect and good judgement to do that?
There are examples where Date has responded online to coherent arguments and criticism with due respect and thoughtful answers but those are few and far between because the quality of online discussions is so frequently very poor indeed.
He has "examples" of good behavior? David are you even listening to how you're making excuse for this guy? These aren't "discussions", these aren't "responses" they're more akin to the random thrashings of a wounded animal! These guys are no heroes, they no leaders, they're just miserable people who happen to be in the way.
and there have been plenty of those on both sides of the null discussion.
Well, there have been a few of those, but not many. But even those suffered from irrelevancy to the other sides. But I welcome you to make a list of those reasoned arguments for us.
That's just the kind of response that makes reasoned discussion and progress impossible. Rather than furthering discussion on the points already made extensively in the works of Codd, Date, Darwen and many others you just say you would like me to repeat them! Is it any wonder if the people concerned have no respect for so-called critics who can't even be bothered to read what they have written?
You say that there are plenty of reasoned arguments, I say that there are few and they aren't relevant. How can we discuss it any further unless you tell me what arguments you think are reasoned and relevant? *I* can't make that list up and then argue against it, that would be a strawman.
Codd certainly didn't dispute that, nor did he dispute that nulls unavoidably give rise to incorrect results.
He never agreed with this either.
Apparently you aren't familiar with his extensive discussion in Chapter 9 of "Relational Database Writings 1991-1994" where Codd does just that and gives an example of a 3VL query that returns an incorrect result. He points out that this could only be resolved by having a tautology detection system - a problem which is known to be NP-complete and therefore not a feasible solution. He does disagree with others on how important this issue is but he still admits that incorrect results are caused by nulls. By the way, this is all in a book authored by Chris Date. Again, I recommend it to you.
Probably published after '95 which is about when I gave up on Chris Date. I have read some stuff since just to see if he had gotten any better (not so far), but not a lot, so I'll have to see if I can find that...
(edit: fixing typos and tags)
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 16, 2010 at 11:06 pm
I have no intention of slogging through all of the slime on DBDebunk.com, but let me give one tiny, benign (well, compared to other stuff there) example:
This is one of a series of internet quotes on different pages collected under the H1 All-Caps title [h1]"THE VOCIFEROUS IGNORANCE HALL OF SHAME":[/h1]
MONASH BALDERDASH
...
Adam Machanic: First rule of DW is forget everything you think you know about data modeling... 🙂
--www.mcse.ms/~
Now this is either intellectual incompetence or (more likely) intentional ignorance to score some meaningless point. The only supposition that I can come up with that even partially ameliorates this is to guess that they must just be hopelessly out of touch with real-world data warehouses.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 16, 2010 at 11:18 pm
With all due respect, I think the discussion that has developed here about what SQL has to do with relational theory deserves a thread of it's own. Hopefully we can get back to the original question of discussing recommended books for SQL newbies. Thanks.
February 16, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Fine with me.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 17, 2010 at 12:32 am
Just to set the record straight, to the best of my knowledge Chris Date never edited or had control of content at DBDEBUNK. The article and quotation posted here is written by Fabian Pascal, not Chris Date. Date and Darwen were both contributors of material but theirs are apparently not the contributions that RBarryYoung is referring to. I hope he will reconsider the remarks he made about Chris Date who I have always found very fair in his dealings with others.
February 17, 2010 at 3:55 am
David Portas (2/17/2010)
Just to set the record straight, to the best of my knowledge Chris Date never edited or had control of content at DBDEBUNK. The article and quotation posted here is written by Fabian Pascal, not Chris Date. Date and Darwen were both contributors of material but theirs are apparently not the contributions that RBarryYoung is referring to. I hope he will reconsider the remarks he made about Chris Date who I have always found very fair in his dealings with others.
Fair enough, David. Pascal's was the only name I knew for sure as being attached to that site, I inferred Date's more from your comment than anything else.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 17, 2010 at 11:55 am
Just wondering what book others here would for learning SQL Server 2008 for a complete newbie ?
Here are a couple titles I think would be readable and informative for someone new to learn SQL Server 2008.
Microsoft® SQL Server® 2008 T-SQL Fundamentals
Itzik Ben-gan is a gifted writer who can bridge the gap.
MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-433): Microsoft® SQL Server® 2008—Database Development
The content is very accessible - and will help you get ready for an exam! The code samples are good and there is good instruction on getting test databases set up and running for hands-on learning.
Bill Nicolich: www.SQLFave.com.
Daily tweet of what's new and interesting: AppendNow
February 17, 2010 at 9:48 pm
@bill and others...ok well let me ask this question: Not only am I new to SQL, I am new to databases in general (my background is in networks). Actually while waiting for my SQL developers edition to arrive in the mail, I started reading "Inside relational databases: examples with access" which is basically an excellent read on relational databases. It covers what tables, forms, joins, relationships, database architecture considerations etc etc all are. Concepts are discussed in that book and my plan is to familiarize myself with both the terms and concepts discussed in that book before even installing SQL Server 2008.
My question is, to what extent does one need to know about databases in general before jumping into SQL Server itself? Or is such knowledge required ? (I'm sure it's beneficial). At what point can one say, ok now I'm ready to implement my own SQL Server (at home) or jump into the certification book ?
Just trying to get an idea here....I don't want to jump into SQL server 2008 and then get stuck every 5 minutes because I don't understand a simple database term or concept.
Thanks in advance for any advice on this guys the feedback I've received on this site has truly been beneficial.
February 18, 2010 at 5:31 am
IMHO, you should know and understand the normalization rules up to 5th Normal Form (or at least Boyce-Codd). Most "acceptable" data designs are at least 3rd Normal Form. You should have a little practice taking a simple needs description and turning it into a normalized data design.
At that point, you are ready for the detailss of implementation, and it will all make a lot more sense, too.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 18, 2010 at 7:22 am
Even if you're new to databases - those books I recommended will help you ramp up - and I think you'll do reasonably well there.
Another recommendation is to zip on down to Orlando this year and take a beginning T-SQL training course from Andy Warren. He's an industry pro who is also a gifted instructor - a rare combination. He's running a great special right now for $999 which is usually $2700. Within a week, I think that would help you ramp up tremendously. Plus, you'll meet a mentor who you can ping about your work. Well worth it. His link is here: EndToEnd Training. Go ahead and call them about their course schedule.
Be sure to post back what you did and what you learned for the benefit of the community.
Bill Nicolich: www.SQLFave.com.
Daily tweet of what's new and interesting: AppendNow
Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply