|
|
Posted by yuri on 03/12/07 20:49
> This is not a class. It's reasonable to expect people to do at least
> a bit of reading on their own first.
The questions were in reference to me being a student asking for help from
more experienced users. If CELKO, the teacher, acted like that then there
must have been a reason, hence the class reference.
<Sarcasm>
Oh right, reading books!! Yes, I never thought of that. I should smack
myself over the head. Jeez... Let me pull some imaginary money out of my
butt, go to the store and grab the $40-$50 dollar book. (No library
reference please).
</Sarcasm>
I have found all the information on the internet, not from books or
schooling(SQL and RDBMS). Did you or CELKO crawl out of the womb and say,
"I am the Master at X, and you will bow before me". I don't think so,
therefore you must have done reading, schooling and for heaven sakes, you
ASKED questions from more experienced people at some point. Didn't you? You
have to start somewhere.
I guarantee I know something you or CELKO don't, and does it make it right
for me to criticize you if you ask a question that is very obvious to me?
No.
Yes, CELKO is a Master at RDBMS, I have just started out and have done very
well in only a few days. So, I cannot ask any questions until I become
extremely proficient at RDBMS and SQL! Huh... Tough group. ;)
Ok, that's over with. Now, let's drink to good times. ;)
Please, can you at least recommend a good book that is for intermediate to
advanced, in regards to SQL and RDBMS, recent copyright date please? I will
spare the money and buy it.
I think I accidently posted to: comp.databases.ms-sqlserver.masterlevel. ;)
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45f585f7$0$5777$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> yuri wrote:
>
>>> Yes it is brought up all the time because people will not bother to
>>> read even one book on RDBMS, so they keep asking this kind of thing
>>> over and over. Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess
>>> what the keys, constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, data
>>> types, etc. in your schema are. Let's start by doing what you should
>>> have done for us:
>>
>> Oh, I'm sorry about that. I failed to get a copy of the CELKO SQL
>> posting etiquette. Could you please point me in the right direction?
>> Sarcasm aside, I will do this in the future. Thanks.
>
> He's pretty much always like that. You get used to it after a while.
>
>>> Why do you wish to destroy First Normal Form (1NF) with a concatenated
>>> list structure? It is the foundation of RDBMS, after all. See why I
>>> say you never read a book on RDBMS.
>>
>> You're right I should have went out and bought a book on RDBMS. I mean
>> who would ever think about asking a question on the internet was
>> possible. I mean everybody should shut down all forums and rely on tech
>> manuals because they are always so well written and contain every piece
>> of knowledge on the planet about the subject, including all the hidden
>> tips and tricks. Questions will be a thing of the past. Just grab a book
>> and your answer will be there. Did you get criticized in class when you
>> had a question about something? Did the teacher yell at you, tell you to
>> read the book and never answer the question?
>
> This is not a class. It's reasonable to expect people to do at least
> a bit of reading on their own first.
>
>>> Why did you think that an owner is an attribute of a dog? It is a
>>> relationship! It might have attributes of its own, like license
>>> numbers, issue date, etc. but let's ignore that.
>>
>> I think a dog belongs to an owner. Can an owner have more than 1 dog?
>> Hmmm.... I think so in this example. Yes, creating a seperate table in
>
> But can a dog have more than one owner? If so, then the relationship
> should indeed be moved into a third table.
>
> This (among many other issues) is the sort of thing that questioners
> tend to gloss over, not because they haven't thought about it, but
> because the answer is obvious to them (whereas it is not obvious to
> the rest of us). Politeness issues aside, I think it's a net gain
> for such issues to be pointed out pre-emptively.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|