Posted by RickW on 03/07/06 01:38

Well, I appreciate the reply, and I see the truth of some of the things
you say, but the summary is that "there is a perfectly good reason why
we should do it sometimes and not others." Stored procedures are
somehow granted an exemption on grounds that are not clear.

Besides, your own statement ("Neither SQL tables nor SQL query results
can always qualify as relations") sounds to me like an excellent reason
to leave a very useful function in the tool, since it's being removed
for a theoretical reason that doesn't even necessarily apply properly to
all the results that it affects.

How about having the tool parse a view that reads other views, and
ignore the ordering in the underlying views. There's your conservation
of resources, which is the true reason to do it, not agreement with a
definition studied in relational theory. Then, have the tool be a sport
when it returns its own result set and apply the ordering to the result
set.

Then, if you want to live purely, you just never put Order By in your
views. You would live this way. If you want to use the tool to push
the sort to the machine with the muscle, you put the Order By where you
want it. I would live this way. SQL Server could even still issue a
little warning that says "you shouldn't do this if you want to live
purely."

You and I only disagree on where exactly the boundary for compromise
should be drawn when creating the tool. I want it a little bit back
towards where it was. You want it further over somewhere, but not
really all the way. And none of the supporting arguments are improved
by the condescending tone you adopt when you make huge and unfounded
assumptions about how I would like to be doing my job.

Thanks for the very detailed replies. They are interesting and serve as
terrific refresher courses. Clears out a few cobwebs. On that account,
lots of fun here.


Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was
killed by an ugly fact. -- Thomas Huxley

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

[Back to original message]